Add on fiancé on lease

[adjusterjack]

Ah lust...oops, I mean love...

Ain't it grand...

I'm betting mom has been through the mill herself and knows a thing or two about these type of men.

Gail

Mom might have watched daughter get pregnant by long gone losers, hence having to live with Mom while raising children.

 

[Just Blue]

When one has minor children, one should never invite a man you barely know to live with you and the little ones. 6 months dating isn't enough time to really know someone.

 

[stealth2]

He's too good for me

Sweetheart - this is just.... sad.

If my daughter were an unmarried mother, living with me, and wanted to move her unmarried (and apparently unemployed) b/f in? I'd balk, too.

How old are you? How old are the kids?

Seriously -delay the wedding until your lease is up. Tell Mr. Wonderful to get a job and a small place for himself in the meantime. If he won't? He's not actually good enough for you.

 

[Litigator22]

Your mom doesn't have to agree to a change in her lease.

I certainly agree that there is no need that mom give consent to a "change in the lease".

However, if it is done without mom's consent, mom is no longer obligated on the lease. And I don't think that the lessor being aware of the consequences would permit such an alteration in the terms of the lease.

It seems clear that the mother assumed joint responsibility under the lease not as a tenant in fact, but as an accommodation to her daughter. The consequences being that she has underwritten/guaranteed as surety her daughter's performance of the lease.

And because substance prevails over form, this three party relationship (mom, daughter and lessor) is governed by the laws of suretyship. And it is a well settled maxim of the laws of suretyship that any material variance or alteration in the terms of the contract made between the principal obligor (daughter) and the creditor (lessor) without the surety's consent, discharges the surety.

 

[adjusterjack]

However, if it is done without mom's consent, mom is no longer obligated on the lease.

Hogwash.

Mom lives there and has a contract with the owner. Whatever daughter does, doesn't change that.

It seems clear that the mother assumed joint responsibility under the lease not as a tenant in fact, but as an accommodation to her daughter.

More hogwash.

Of course Mom is a "tenant in fact." She lives there and has a contract with the landlord.

The consequences being that she has underwritten/guaranteed as surety her daughter's performance of the lease.

And more hogwash.

And because substance prevails over form, this three party relationship (mom, daughter and lessor) is governed by the laws of suretyship.

The ultimate in hogwash.

 

[justalayman]

I certainly agree that there is no need that mom give consent to a "change in the lease".

However, if it is done without mom's consent, mom is no longer obligated on the lease. And I don't think that the lessor being aware of the consequences would permit such an alteration in the terms of the lease.

It seems clear that the mother assumed joint responsibility under the lease not as a tenant in fact, but as an accommodation to her daughter. The consequences being that she has underwritten/guaranteed as surety her daughter's performance of the lease.

And because substance prevails over form, this three party relationship (mom, daughter and lessor) is governed by the laws of suretyship. And it is a well settled maxim of the laws of suretyship that any material variance or alteration in the terms of the contract made between the principal obligor (daughter) and the creditor (lessor) without the surety's consent, discharges the surety.

Um, I enjoy your eloquence but I think it’s simpler than that.

Under contract law there cannot be unilateral changes to the contract. An attempt to make such changes doesn’t nullify the original contract (which your dependency on surety does) but renders the amendment void.


I can’t see a court ever accepting your argument over well established contract law.



Besides, even if you make a surety argument, the implied contract of surety has not been altered. Mom would still only be liable for what she agreed to and the daughter is liable for the same as she was. There are no changes affecting the surety issue therefore it remains intact. Even if the lease is changed as suggested, the contract concerning the surety has not.

And of course your entire premise is based on an assumption that hasn’t even been hinted at as valid. The fact mom also lives there pretty much defeats your argument since mom is independently liable for the lease and as such, your surety argument goes out the window.

Your argument would be so much more convincing if mom didn’t also live there but mom also enjoys the benefit of the lease thereby removing her from being nothing more than a guarantor

 

[justalayman]

Hogwash.

Mom lives there and has a contract with the owner. Whatever daughter does, doesn't change that.



More hogwash.

Of course Mom is a "tenant in fact." She lives there and has a contract with the landlord.



And more hogwash.



The ultimate in hogwash.

You must have one clean piggy there

 

[adjusterjack]

You must have one clean piggy there

Has to be. Otherwise I won't fight him because I'd get dirty and he'd like it.

 

[Litigator22]

Um, I enjoy your eloquence (?) but I think it’s simpler than that. . . .

My mistake, justy! Regretfully I neglected to take notice of the "co-resident" status. Which of course gives a hasty stage left boot to my suretyship argument.

Anyway, thanks for correcting me and the reminder that one should take as much time reading the questions as in replying to them. As a law school prof once remarked: Few conclusions hold water when jumped to.

 

[Litigator22]

Has to be. Otherwise I won't fight him because I'd get dirty and he'd like it.

Such polish. Such stunning silver-tongued expressiveness. I'm overwhelmed with admiration!

 

[FarmerJ]

OP no one asked you , Can your mom afford this apartment all by her self ? OR can you afford this apartment all by your self ?

 

[not2cleverRed]

My mistake, justy! Regretfully I neglected to take notice of the "co-resident" status. Which of course gives a hasty stage left boot to my suretyship argument.

Anyway, thanks for correcting me and the reminder that one should take as much time reading the questions as in replying to them. As a law school prof once remarked: Few conclusions hold water when jumped to.

Yes, you ignored a lot of things in your haste, not just that Mom is a co-resident, and the townhome complex requires the her signature on an addendum in order to add the boyfriend.

There were several disquieting things about OP's posts, making your encouragement ill thought out. The lease began in April 2019, and Mom has known about OP's boyfriend since January. OP has at least 2 boys. The boyfriend has "nowhere else to go" and she can't wait 9 months... because "He's too good for [OP]." When did this "engagement" happen, and when is the projected wedding date?

This would-be Knight in Shining Armor is willing to sow discord between OP and her mother, lacks the financial resources to provide housing for himself, and has been with OP barely 6 months. The good stepdads I know took things much more slowly, and took on far more financial responsibility before taking on stepdad status.

Such polish. Such stunning silver-tongued expressiveness. I'm overwhelmed with admiration!

Will you boys stop flirting?

 

[stealth2]

This would be Knight in Shining Armor

LOL The boys down the street have a different name for him...