• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

[AL] Reletting. Can the new tenant be responsible for preexisting damage?

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

pizdos

Member
I have taken over a residential lease from another person. Now I am trying to understand whether my landlord can hold me liable for the property damages caused by the original tenant. I have signed a boilerplate rental agreement that says I am liable only for the damages caused after I moved in. It does not even say that I am taking over anybody's lease, let alone transfer of previous tenant's obligations. However, there is an AS-IS provision in the following addendum: . I am afraid it will make me liable. The lease contains no definition of how this provision affects the lease. The contract also describes the re-letting procedure, saying that the original tenant is responsible for all his damages, but as far as I know he has not been billed for anything. Landlord refused to accept any condition forms (this fact is reflected in the addendum I mentioned above). However, I have recoded a few videos that demonstrate the state of the properties 1 week after I moved in.

I feel like the management just did not bother to inspect the properties or prepare the paperwork to transfer the obligations, but wanted to hold somebody responsible for remodeling. At the same time they charged the original tenant a hefty fee of $450 to cover their "expenses".

I can provide my agreement after removing all sensitive information if it helps you to answer my question.
 


Zigner

Senior Member, Non-Attorney
What state?
You are responsible for whatever damages you cause. Your situation will boil down to a matter of proof.
 

pizdos

Member
My state is Alabama (I put it in the title). Who will bear the burden of proof? I think LL did not document the condition of the house prior to my move-in (they told me they did not enter the properties). Will my 1 week old video be an adequate proof?
 

Zigner

Senior Member, Non-Attorney
My state is Alabama (I put it in the title).
Oh, that is an unusual way to do it and I missed it. It doesn't change my answer.

Who will bear the burden of proof? I think LL did not document the condition of the house prior to my move-in (they told me they did not enter the properties). Will my 1 week old video be an adequate proof?
There is no way that I can predict with any certainty if your evidence will be enough to sway the court, but I would hazard a guess that it would help.
 

zddoodah

Active Member
I am trying to understand whether my landlord can hold me liable for the property damages caused by the original tenant. I have signed a boilerplate rental agreement that says I am liable only for the damages caused after I moved in.
I feel like you've answered your own question. But I'll read further.


However, there is an AS-IS provision in the following addendum:
Well...just FYI, the bit that you've provided is completely ambiguous. It starts out by saying, "Receipt of these items is determined by the return of my Move-In Condition Form." What items? Does "my" refer to you or the landlord? What is a "Move-In Condition Form"? There are then two paragraphs, and it appears that the intent was for the tenant to initial one or the other. However, there is a horizontal line on the first paragraph and "AS-IS" on the other. Are "AS-IS" your initials? Also, what is the language that supports your previous statement that the lease "says [you are] liable only for the damages caused after [you] moved in"?


I am afraid it will make me liable.
I don't know the specifics of Alabama law on this subject, but most states require that, within some period of time after a tenant moves out, the landlord has to provide the tenant with a list of intended deductions from the security deposit. Under the circumstances, will presumably seek to deduct from your deposit for any damages that exist when you vacate the premises. If your deposit is insufficient to cover the damage, then the landlord could retain your entire deposit and sue for damage in excess of the deposit. You can, of course, defend against such a lawsuit, and your landlord, as plaintiff, would have the burden of proof. On the other hand, if you dispute the deductions from your deposit, then you'd have to sue to get the money back and you'd have the burden of proof. It seems to me that the blurb you provided was an attempt to require you to identify any existing damage when you moved in and, if you did not do so, then you would be precluded from later claiming that you didn't cause the damage. You wrote that the landlord "refused to accept any condition forms," but I'm not really sure what that means. Did you complete such a form and send it to the landlord (whether by personal delivery, email or otherwise)?
 

quincy

Senior Member
Tenants in Michigan are often asked by their landlords to submit a list that details the condition of the rental unit as it is when they move in. The list can include things like “chipped bathroom counter” and “stain in carpet off entryway” and so on.

It is often best if the tenant list even minor problems with the unit so s/he won’t be charged by mistake for damage present on move-in.

If the list is extensive (or items listed are questionable :)), the landlord often will make an appointment to view the unit.

It helps to have pictures with dates and/or videos of the unit as it is when you move in.
 

pizdos

Member
Let me give you some clarifications about my case. Initially landlord (a big apartment complex) told me over the phone that the lease is provided "as is" and I will be responsible for the damages. I inspected the house with the previous tenant and it looked ok to me, so I agreed to take it over. After I moved in, I started noticing issues. They are mostly cosmetic, but if landlord decides to fix them at my expense, it is going to hurt me. I understand that I have made a mistake accepting such terms because it is impossible to tell whether something is damaged or not if you cannot see the original state of the house. So, now I am trying find out if what LL told me over the phone contradicts the contract I have signed.

Are "AS-IS" your initials?
No, this is "as is" condition as they told me. One part of it matches my initials, though. LL wrote this phrase there by their hand to mark that they would not accept the condition form (list of missing or damaged items). This addendum itself is about wristbands (this is what the word "items" refers to), but for some reason it mentions the condition form.

Also, what is the language that supports your previous statement that the lease "says [you are] liable only for the damages caused after [you] moved in"?
Further, each Resident shall pay to Landlord a non-refundable Redecoration Fee (the “Redec Fee”) to cover the normal expenses incurred by Landlord returning the Premises to their original condition at the commencement of the Lease, minus ordinary wear and tear. The Redec Fee is not a deposit. In the event that Landlord incurs or will incur expenses in returning the Premises and/or Property Common Area to the condition so required by this Lease, which amount exceeds the Redec Fee, Resident understands and agrees that Resident shall pay such excess expense to Landlord within thirty (30) days of receipt of an invoice for such amount.
If your deposit is insufficient to cover the damage, then the landlord could retain your entire deposit and sue for damage in excess of the deposit.
There was no deposit for me. As far as I know, this LL does not take the deposit from anyone. They just bill tenants after move-out and if the bill is not paid, they send the debt to collections. I do not want it to hurt my credit rating, so I am asking advice how to avoid all this.

Tenants in Michigan are often asked by their landlords to submit a list that details the condition of the rental unit as it is when they move in. The list can include things like “chipped bathroom counter” and “stain in carpet off entryway” and so on.
It worked the same way with my previous LL, but this one refused to accept such a list.
 

quincy

Senior Member
Let me give you some clarifications about my case. Initially landlord (a big apartment complex) told me over the phone that the lease is provided "as is" and I will be responsible for the damages. I inspected the house with the previous tenant and it looked ok to me, so I agreed to take it over. After I moved in, I started noticing issues. They are mostly cosmetic, but if landlord decides to fix them at my expense, it is going to hurt me. I understand that I have made a mistake accepting such terms because it is impossible to tell whether something is damaged or not if you cannot see the original state of the house. So, now I am trying find out if what LL told me over the phone contradicts the contract I have signed.


No, this is "as is" condition as they told me. One part of it matches my initials, though. LL wrote this phrase there by their hand to mark that they would not accept the condition form (list of missing or damaged items). This addendum itself is about wristbands (this is what the word "items" refers to), but for some reason it mentions the condition form.





There was no deposit for me. As far as I know, this LL does not take the deposit from anyone. They just bill tenants after move-out and if the bill is not paid, they send the debt to collections. I do not want it to hurt my credit rating, so I am asking advice how to avoid all this.


It worked the same way with my previous LL, but this one refused to accept such a list.
So ... are you essentially a subletter approved by the landlord, taking over the remainder of the term of the other tenant’s lease? Or is your lease a full term (one-year) lease?

If you are a subletter, and the landlord did not require a new security deposit, any damages would be taken from the original tenant’s security deposit. Any damage in excess of the security deposit, you potentially could be held liable for. You would have taken over not only the previous tenant’s lease but the previous tenant’s previous damage to the unit.
 

pizdos

Member
So ... are you essentially a subletter approved by the landlord, taking over the remainder of the term of the other tenant’s lease?
This. However, my agreement does not say I am. It does not mention the departing tenant and his contract. My contract looks as though I am a fully fledged lessee with a 3-month term, except for that AS-IS phrase, which is not defined anywhere.
 

quincy

Senior Member
This. However, my agreement does not say I am. It does not mention the departing tenant and his contract. My contract looks as though I am a fully fledged lessee with a 3-month term, except for that AS-IS phrase, which is not defined anywhere.
Okay. Well ... as subletter, even one approved by the landlord, you take on the unit just as if you were the original tenant, albeit for a shorter period of time.

Absent any agreement to the contrary between you and the original tenant or between you and the landlord, you are responsible for the condition of the unit and can be held liable for damage to the unit, just as if you were the original tenant.

Any damage caused by the former tenant is now on you if it exceeds the amount held by the landlord from the previous tenant’s security deposit.
 

pizdos

Member
as subletter
Even though I am essentially a subletter (or rather an assignee(?), because this is not subletting, but lease assignment or re-letting), no document I signed states this. Does this mean I should be treated as a subletter/assignee?

What's also interesting here, the landlord's procedure of re-letting in my agreement looks as follows:
Residents find a replacement Resident acceptable to Landlord before moving out and Landlord expressly consents to the replacement, then:
a) Such substitute Resident will be obligated to the standard application fee, which shall be immediately due and payable;
b) The departing Resident must pay for all damage to the Unit and the Property as provided in this Lease;
c) The replacement Resident must meet the Rental Qualifications Criteria and Acknowledgement;
d) The replacement Resident must fully complete and execute a new Lease and all addenda, and cause a new Guarantee to
be executed and delivered;
e) A rekeying fee will be due if rekeying is requested or required; and
f) The departing Resident will no longer remain liable for all Lease Contract obligations for the rest of the original Lease Contract term.
 

quincy

Senior Member
Even though I am essentially a subletter (or rather an assignee(?), because this is not subletting, but lease assignment or re-letting), no document I signed states this. Does this mean I should be treated as a subletter/assignee?

What's also interesting here, the landlord's procedure of re-letting in my agreement looks as follows:
That would be the “any agreement to the contrary” which I mentioned earlier.

The original tenant’s deposit covers damage to the unit, the damage of which is generally assessed at the end of the original lease term (which ends when your lease ends).

Because there could be other clauses in your lease that you haven’t mentioned, you can have the lease personally reviewed in its entirety by an attorney in your area.
 

pizdos

Member
Absent any agreement to the contrary between you and the original tenant or between you and the landlord, you are responsible for the condition of the unit and can be held liable for damage to the unit, just as if you were the original tenant.
That would be the “any agreement to the contrary” which I mentioned earlier.
I am sorry, I cannot seem to understand what you are trying to say. Did you mean that by default the subletter takes over all rights and obligations of the original tenant unless there is some agreement between them?
 

LdiJ

Senior Member
Okay. Well ... as subletter, even one approved by the landlord, you take on the unit just as if you were the original tenant, albeit for a shorter period of time.

Absent any agreement to the contrary between you and the original tenant or between you and the landlord, you are responsible for the condition of the unit and can be held liable for damage to the unit, just as if you were the original tenant.

Any damage caused by the former tenant is now on you if it exceeds the amount held by the landlord from the previous tenant’s security deposit.
I think its a little questionable as to whether or not the OP is a subletter or a new tenant.
 

Zigner

Senior Member, Non-Attorney
I think its a little questionable as to whether or not the OP is a subletter or a new tenant.
I agree. In fact, I think "questionable" isn't even the word. I think it's entirely likely that the OP is simply a tenant since the OP got an entirely new lease from the landlord of the building. A sublessor would be renting from the prior tenant, not the landlord.

Having said that, I doubt that an "as-is" clause is applicable. Per state law, the tenant is responsible for damages he (or she) causes that are beyond normal wear and tear. If there are provable preexisting damages, then the OP wouldn't be responsible for them.
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top