Can I be sued for back rent, that happen after i moved out? Illinois

[Deadbroke88]

Illinois

A former landlord is threatening to sue me for back rent, even though I moved out over a year ago( 20 months) and rent was paid up to date. I was living with family members (2 people) and I moved out and they stayed. 4 months ago I get a call from the landlord saying that the family is behind on rent( $2800)and I owe part of it. Claims we were behind on rent when I left, but he didn't mention it until close to a year later. I didn't want to fight him on it so I agreed to pay $1300 in back rent with the understanding that I wouldn't be liable for any rent or back rent occurred in the future.I paid the 1300 odd dollars to him, Now today (4 months after i paid 1300) the rest of the family has moved out and I get a call saying there's $4200 in back rent owed and he says i'm responsible for part of it and if he doesn't get it either in full or as a payment plan then he's going to sue everyone for it.
Landlord claims because my name is on the original lease agreement from 2015 I'm liable for back rent even tho I wasn't living there.
I don't have a copy of the original lease either to read the details

 

[adjusterjack]

Can you be sued? Of course? Would he actually sue you? Who knows. He already scared you into paying $1300. He probably thinks you're vulnerable to scare tactics and is trying again.

I didn't want to fight him on it so I agreed to pay $1300 in back rent with the understanding that I wouldn't be liable for any rent or back rent occurred in the future.

I'll bet you didn't get that settlement agreement in writing. Big mistake. Settlement agreements are enforceable.

I don't have a copy of the original lease either to read the details

That you don't have a copy of the lease is your own fault (sorry to be blunt). Never, never, never, sign anything that you don't keep a copy of.

Now today the rest of the family has moved out and I get a call saying there's $4200 in back rent owed and he says i'm responsible for part of it.
if he doesn't get it either in full or as a payment plan then he's going to sue everyone for it. Landlord claims because my name is on the original lease agreement from 2015 I'm liable for back rent even tho I wasn't living there.

Depending on the terms of the lease, you could very well be liable for money owed by your co-tenants. It's called "joint and several." Google it.

Whether you pay or not is up to you. It would surprise me if you didn't know that you have the option of telling him to pound sand and then wait and see what happens.

 

[Deadbroke88]

Can you be sued? Of course? Would he actually sue you? Who knows. He already scared you into paying $1300. He probably thinks you're vulnerable to scare tactics and is trying again.



I'll bet you didn't get that settlement agreement in writing. Big mistake. Settlement agreements are enforceable.



That you don't have a copy of the lease is your own fault (sorry to be blunt). Never, never, never, sign anything that you don't keep a copy of.



Depending on the terms of the lease, you could very well be liable for money owed by your co-tenants. It's called "joint and several." Google it.

Whether you pay or not is up to you. It would surprise me if you didn't know that you have the option of telling him to pound sand and then wait and see what happens.

I have email,text, and voicemails for the settlement agreement. outlining what I owed and when I paid it off. I didnt think I'd need to keep a copy of a lease from 2015, but lesson learned. I know i can tell him to pound sand but i know he'll sue because the other co-tenants aren't going to pay what they owe

 

[LdiJ]

Illinois

A former landlord is threatening to sue me for back rent, even though I moved out over a year ago( 20 months) and rent was paid up to date. I was living with family members (2 people) and I moved out and they stayed. 4 months ago I get a call from the landlord saying that the family is behind on rent( $2800)and I owe part of it. Claims we were behind on rent when I left, but he didn't mention it until close to a year later. I didn't want to fight him on it so I agreed to pay $1300 in back rent with the understanding that I wouldn't be liable for any rent or back rent occurred in the future. Now today the rest of the family has moved out and I get a call saying there's $4200 in back rent owed and he says i'm responsible for part of it and if he doesn't get it either in full or as a payment plan then he's going to sue everyone for it.
Landlord claims because my name is on the original lease agreement from 2015 I'm liable for back rent even tho I wasn't living there.
I don't have a copy of the original lease either to read the details

You probably want to get a consult with a real estate attorney in IL, but its possible that you could still technically be liable for the alleged back rent.

 

[adjusterjack]

I have email,text, and voicemails for the settlement agreement. outlining what I owed and when I paid it off. I didnt think I'd need to keep a copy of a lease from 2015, but lesson learned. I know i can tell him to pound sand but i know he'll sue because the other co-tenants aren't going to pay what they owe

Then let him sue. There's no sense throwing good money after bad if you don't have to. Your evidence of email, text, and voicemails about the settlement agreement might be enough. You can run this by an attorney if you like but I don't see getting excited over this until you are served with a lawsuit.

 

[Litigator22]

Illinois

A former landlord is threatening to sue me for back rent, even though I moved out over a year ago( 20 months) and rent was paid up to date. I was living with family members (2 people) and I moved out and they stayed. 4 months ago I get a call from the landlord saying that the family is behind on rent( $2800)and I owe part of it. Claims we were behind on rent when I left, but he didn't mention it until close to a year later. I didn't want to fight him on it so I agreed to pay $1300 in back rent with the understanding that I wouldn't be liable for any rent or back rent occurred in the future. Now today the rest of the family has moved out and I get a call saying there's $4200 in back rent owed and he says i'm responsible for part of it and if he doesn't get it either in full or as a payment plan then he's going to sue everyone for it.
Landlord claims because my name is on the original lease agreement from 2015 I'm liable for back rent even tho I wasn't living there.
I don't have a copy of the original lease either to read the details.

Setting aside for the moment what if any legal ramifications attended this "$1300 pay back" business you don't seem be in very good shape.

I say that because it seems apparent that you and the "other family members" did in fact enter into a written lease agreement. In which event it is highly unlikely that the lease expressly apportioned or divided the total rent among the separate tenants. (Not entirely improbable, buy rarely if ever do such agreements with multiple tenants split the duty to pay rent.)

That being so the tenants would be jointly and severally liable for the whole rent. Not just a proportionate share, but the total amount; which allows the landlord to look to one or all. (Example you could be stuck for the $2800 and not just "a part of it".)

It also seems clear that you moved out while the lease was active and did so without the prior consent of the landlord nor with the approval of the remaining tenants. Nor under circumstances whereby the remaining tenants agreed to fully assume your legal obligations under the lease. So let's dismiss any notion that you are not liable for back rent simply because you didn't live there.

Now about the $1300. It isn't clear just what transpired between you and the landlord. You say that you agreed to pay the $1300 "with the understanding that I wouldn't be liable for any rent or back rent occurred in the future". But you don't say whether the landlord agreed to the "understanding" or whether or not you paid the $1300?

Importantly it could amount to what is known as an "accord and satisfaction" absolving you of any further responsibility to the landlord.

"Accord and satisfaction" is legal lingo meaning that an existing dispute was resolved by a new agreement (the accord) and solidified by performance of the substituted agreement (the satisfaction). But again we will need more detail.

There are some other aspects here that need to be explored, but if I don't get any feed back on the above there ain't no use of going into them.

 

[Deadbroke88]

Setting aside for the moment what if any legal ramifications attended this "$1300 pay back" business you don't seem be in very good shape.

I say that because it seems apparent that you and the "other family members" did in fact enter into a written lease agreement. In which event it is highly unlikely that the lease expressly apportioned or divided the total rent among the separate tenants. (Not entirely improbable, buy rarely if ever do such agreements with multiple tenants split the duty to pay rent.)

That being so the tenants would be jointly and severally liable for the whole rent. Not just a proportionate share, but the total amount; which allows the landlord to look to one or all. (Example you could be stuck for the $2800 and not just "a part of it".)

It also seems clear that you moved out while the lease was active and did so without the prior consent of the landlord nor with the approval of the remaining tenants. Nor under circumstances whereby the remaining tenants agreed to fully assume your legal obligations under the lease. So let's dismiss any notion that you are not liable for back rent simply because you didn't live there.

Now about the $1300. It isn't clear just what transpired between you and the landlord. You say that you agreed to pay the $1300 "with the understanding that I wouldn't be liable for any rent or back rent occurred in the future". But you don't say whether the landlord agreed to the "understanding" or whether or not you paid the $1300?

Importantly it could amount to what is known as an "accord and satisfaction" absolving you of any further responsibility to the landlord.

"Accord and satisfaction" is legal lingo meaning that an existing dispute was resolved by a new agreement (the accord) and solidified by performance of the substituted agreement (the satisfaction). But again we will need more detail.

There are some other aspects here that need to be explored, but if I don't get any feed back on the above there ain't no use of going into them.

To clear up somethings, I did pay the 1300 in payments over a 2 month period , and I did notify the other tenants weeks before I moved out and I told the landlord I moved after 2 month(I didn't know if the new living situation would work out) and for the 2 months I paid my share of the rent. I even give money to my family to help them with the rent for months after I moved out.

 

[Litigator22]

I id pay the 1300 in payments over a 2

To clear up somethings, [sic] month period , and I did notify the other tenants weeks before I moved out and I told the landlord I mved after 2 month(I didn't know if the new living situation would work out) and for the 2 months I paid my share of the rent. I even give money to my family to help them with the rent for months after I moved out.

Not so my friend. Other than the fact that you are entitled to be credited for the $1300 nothing is "cleared up" !

In order for those payments to release you from further liability to the landlord you need proof that the landlord accepted the payments in satisfaction of an "accord". The "accord" or agreement being that he agreed to accept the $1300 in full satisfaction of all past, present or future claims against you with respect to you occupation of the leased premises.

Without some signed memorandum to that effect (or should he capitulate) I serious doubt that you can establish an accord and satisfaction. For one thing it appears unquestioned that there was rent due and owing the landlord. So he could argue that any such "accord" related only to past due and not future rent.

Secondly by agreeing to release you of all future liability for rent (or of any of your contractual responsibilities under the lease) he would be cutting his own throat! Why?

Because unless the other tenants agreed to your being let out and they reaffirmed their obligations under the lease - by operation of law - they too would be released from future liability under the lease. (The reason that is so has to do with the laws of suretyship which I would happily explain if asked.)
______________________________________

Now touching this business of your notifying the others of you intention to walk away from the lease. Where you seem to be hung up is your failure/refusal to acknowledge the existence of your contractual commitments to the landlord and the other tenants.

Hopefully you aren't so naïve as to think that you can arbitrarily and with impunity back out of those obligations. Your "renter's remorse" because of not knowing "if the new living situation would work out" isn't going to fly!

When I say "contractual commitments to the other tenants" I'm referring to what is known as the right of contribution among co-obligors, or here co-tenants. In essence it means that if one tenant pays more than his fair share of the rent he can look to any tenant that has failed to pay his fair share. Unless otherwise agreed that fair share would be in equal proportions.

So what that means is that unless the other tenants agree to release you from your obligation to contribute to the rent you will remain indebted to them for an equal share of the rent whether you choose to live there or not. And that obligation will continue throughout the original stated term or period of the lease.

Again be mindful that if the landlord chooses he can hold you responsible for all of the rent throughout the original term of the lease and whether you live there or not.