12 month lease not actually 12 months?

[chunktronic]

The question: can the term of a lease described as a "12 month lease" actually be less than 12 months? And are there limits on the month to month rate to be charged after the end of a lease?

Here's the situation:
I signed a "12 month" lease on 1/14/2008 term to end 1/9/2009, and signed a new "12 month lease" on 1/9/2009, term to end 1/5/2009. Now, I should have paid attention to the dates, but at the time I planned to live in my place for the foreseeable future and I didn't think about it. Now I plan to move out by the end of January, and two years after I signed two 12 month leases, I find myself with a lease that ends earlier than I had expected.

The hard part is that the month to month rate they have offered me for the remainder of january is $3,027, while my current lease rate is $2,200.

Are either of these situations legal under California law?

 

[BL]

California Tenants - California Department of Consumer Affairs

You basically are being required to pay the additional pro rated amount for the remainder of Jan.

Your lease is valid .

Yes, you should have been diligent . Most often when a tenant moves in after the 1st of the month ,that months rent is prorated ,then the lease goes from the 1st of each month to then end day of the final month .

But you didn't pay attention .

You can't live there rent free.

 

[chunktronic]

I'm not trying to live rent free for the rest of the month: all I want is to continue to pay my regular rent at least until the 14th, and not the month to month value that was significantly higher.

What the management company told me is that they routinely take a week or two off of the term of twelve month leases because of "price optimization", which sounds to me more like "profit optimization".

I didn't really think about it because I figured a 12 month lease lasted 12 months.