• 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.

quincy

Senior Member
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?
Generally with an assignment of the lease, the original tenant remains primarily liable for damages to the unit under the conditions of the original lease. The new tenant is secondarily liable. And the new tenant is liable to the landlord for all obligations under his lease (rent and utility costs, etc).

The original tenant’s security deposit (which appears to now include an additional $450) will cover damages to the unit but, should damage costs exceed the amount of the original tenant’s deposit, both the original tenant AND the new tenant can be held liable for these excess damage costs - absent any agreement to the contrary.

It is common for a landlord to draft a new lease for a new tenant even when the new tenant is taking over a lease from an early-departing tenant. The landlord wants the new tenant informed of all terms and conditions.

It would be less common for a landlord to release a departing tenant from his obligations under the original lease. The original tenant and the new tenant generally will be held jointly and severally liable for the condition of the unit for the full term of the lease.
 


LdiJ

Senior Member
Generally with an assignment of the lease, the original tenant remains primarily liable for damages to the unit under the conditions of the original lease. The new tenant is secondarily liable. And the new tenant is liable to the landlord for all obligations under his lease (rent and utility costs, etc).

The original tenant’s security deposit (which appears to now include an additional $450) will cover damages to the unit but, should damage costs exceed the amount of the original tenant’s deposit, both the original tenant AND the new tenant can be held liable for these excess damage costs - absent any agreement to the contrary.

It is common for a landlord to draft a new lease for a new tenant even when the new tenant is taking over a lease from an early-departing tenant. The landlord wants the new tenant informed of all terms and conditions.

It would be less common for a landlord to release a departing tenant from his obligations under the original lease. The original tenant and the new tenant generally will be held jointly and severally liable for the condition of the unit for the full term of the lease.
I don't agree very much with your statements here. I don't think that the OP is subletting, I think that the landlord took him on as a new tenant. Its also not uncommon at all for a landlord to let a tenant out of a lease (with generally some cost to the tenant) and then to sign a new lease with a new tenant. In fact I think that more landlords prefer to do that, than deal with a subletting situation.
 

quincy

Senior Member
I don't agree very much with your statements here. I don't think that the OP is subletting, I think that the landlord took him on as a new tenant. Its also not uncommon at all for a landlord to let a tenant out of a lease (with generally some cost to the tenant) and then to sign a new lease with a new tenant. In fact I think that more landlords prefer to do that, than deal with a subletting situation.
Having dealt with subletters in the past, I will stick with what I said. The new tenant took over from the original tenant the remaining three months of an existing one year lease. Unless the landlord released the original tenant of ALL obligations under the terms of the original lease, the original tenant remains liable for the condition of the rental until the end of the original lease.
 

pizdos

Member
The new tenant took over from the original tenant the remaining three months of an existing one year lease. Unless the landlord released the original tenant of ALL obligations under the terms of the original lease, the original tenant remains liable for the condition of the rental until the end of the original lease.
I guess, the intention of my LL is to release the original tenant and make me liable. This is supported by the fact that LL has not inspected the unit and has not billed the old tenant for anything (there is no security deposit at all, and that $450 I mentioned is a non-refundable fee). Plus, LL told me over the phone that I would be responsible for damages. Fortunately for me, his intention seems to contradict the written agreement. On the other hand, it is a big management company and I cannot believe they could blunder like that.
 

Zigner

Senior Member, Non-Attorney
It would be less common for a landlord to release a departing tenant from his obligations under the original lease. The original tenant and the new tenant generally will be held jointly and severally liable for the condition of the unit for the full term of the lease.
If the LL draws up an entirely new lease for the new tenant, then there's a strong implication that the old tenant has been released from his/her obligations unless otherwise agreed upon.
Let's compare this to a situation when a tenant breaks a lease by moving out and the LL moves a new tenant in. Can the LL still hold the prior tenant liable for rent after the new tenant moves in?
 

Zigner

Senior Member, Non-Attorney
Ok, then I am back to viewing you as a sublettor.
(To make this more clear, I'm going to refer to the overall landlord as the "owner".) If the OP was a sublettor, then his landlord would be the prior tenant, not the owner.
 

quincy

Senior Member
I guess, the intention of my LL is to release the original tenant and make me liable. This is supported by the fact that LL has not inspected the unit and has not billed the old tenant for anything (there is no security deposit at all, and that $450 I mentioned is a non-refundable fee). Plus, LL told me over the phone that I would be responsible for damages. Fortunately for me, his intention seems to contradict the written agreement. On the other hand, it is a big management company and I cannot believe they could blunder like that.
If the LL draws up an entirely new lease for the new tenant, then there's a strong implication that the old tenant has been released from his/her obligations unless otherwise agreed upon.
Let's compare this to a situation when a tenant breaks a lease by moving out and the LL moves a new tenant in. Can the LL still hold the prior tenant liable for rent after the new tenant moves in?
As I said earlier, drawing up a new lease is common. It is for the benefit of both the new tenant and the landlord that the new tenant has a lease outlining rules and regulations and terms and conditions of renting. It does not supplant the original lease.

The new lease with the old lease makes both tenants jointly and severally liable.
 

LdiJ

Senior Member
If the LL draws up an entirely new lease for the new tenant, then there's a strong implication that the old tenant has been released from his/her obligations unless otherwise agreed upon.
Let's compare this to a situation when a tenant breaks a lease by moving out and the LL moves a new tenant in. Can the LL still hold the prior tenant liable for rent after the new tenant moves in?
Only if the "landlord" to the new tenant is the old tenant and therefore its a true sublease. The fact that the OP's lease is only three months long would tend to indicate that he is a subletter. Otherwise the landlord/owner would most likely have wanted a longer lease from the new tenant.
 

Zigner

Senior Member, Non-Attorney
As I said earlier, drawing up a new lease is common. It is for the benefit of both the new tenant and the landlord that the new tenant has a lease outlining rules and regulations and terms and conditions of renting. It does not supplant the original lease.

The new lease with the old lease makes both tenants jointly and severally liable.
If the former tenant didn't sign the new lease agreeing to be jointly and severally liable, then the new document would not create such a liability.
 

Zigner

Senior Member, Non-Attorney
Only if the "landlord" to the new tenant is the old tenant and therefore its a true sublease. The fact that the OP's lease is only three months long would tend to indicate that he is a subletter. Otherwise the landlord/owner would most likely have wanted a longer lease from the new tenant.
I understand that the original LL may have intended for this to be the situation, but as described, that is not how the new document will function.
 

quincy

Senior Member
Assignee, actually, because a subletter is tenant to another tenant. Pizdos, you pay the landlord directly under your own lease so you are technically an assignee. Similar to a subletter but your responsibility is to the landlord and not the departing tenant.
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

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