Breaking lease early, unjust enrichment in Pa

[pfan]

In what state is this taking place? That matters because this is an issue of state law. I disagree with the lawyer that told you it was "unjust enrichment." That attorney may have forgotten that unjust enrichment is a remedy for situations in which a party benefits at the expense of another but and there is no contract between them. The courts remedy that unjust circumstance by imposing relief much like there was a contract, thus unjust enrichment is known as quasi-contractual remedy since the situation is not truly a contract, but the court effectively treats it like one.

But that's not to say that attorney got it wrong that there is a problem here. The basic rule of contract law here is that the tenant owes rent through the end of the lease term. Thus, the tenant must continue to pay rent even if the tenant leaves well before the lease term expires. But there is also a rule in at least most states that the landlord must mitigate his damages by trying to lease the unit to someone else at a fair market rate. Once the landlord is able to rent it to someone else, the old tenant is only responsible for whatever rent shortfall there is with the new tenant. That is, if the landlord had to lease it at a lower rental rate than the old tenant had the old tenant is still liable for the difference so that the landlord still comes out whole on the deal he made with the old tenant.

The landlord might point to the lease and say you still owe a penalty of 3.5 months rent even if he can lease it right away. The problem for the landlord is that in general penalties are not favored in contract law and courts will generally only uphold them if the penalty is a reasonable amount that roughly compensates for the extra costs/damages that the party incurs from a breach. I have a hard time seeing a penalty of 3.5 months rent as being a reasonable estimate of what those costs would be.

You might want to see a local contract or tenant attorney if the landlord is really going to push that 3.5 months penalty or if the landlord tries to charge you rent for months in which he has a new tenant in the space.

Thank you it is Pa, from what I understand the landlord doesn't have to attempt to mitigate damages, BUT if he does get another tenant, he cannot profit, from my leaving and paying the break fee of 3.5 months.

 

[pfan]

At least in my area of PA that exit fee begins to smell like a penalty ...and a LL who makes no serious attempt to mitigate might have a bad day at DJ level to enforce that "fee" .

I would suggest OP make a effort to find a replacement of equal financial ability to pay

Carefully worded liquidated damages might slide past the penalty issue

Its Bethlehem Pa. I am certainly willing to help find a replacement, even paying a discount, if the new tenants rate is below, what Im paying.

Whats disgusting is I have rented for 17 years, and I am being treated this way. I have owned houses myself in the past and was always fair when a tenant left.

 

[pfan]

Pennsylvania does not impose a duty to mitigate on a landlord.

Stonehedge Square Ltd. P'ship v. Movie Merchants, Inc., 715 A.2d 1082 (Pa. 1998).

The landlord would have no obligation to re-rent and could leave the rental unoccupied for the remainder of your lease and charge you accordingly.

Obviously, you wouldn't be paying anything after you left so he would be foolish to do that while collecting nothing. Once he does re-rent you would only owe for the period that the unit was unrented plus appropriate expenses involved in re-renting the unit.

The units rent very quickly.

 

[adjusterjack]

I repeat.

Obviously, you wouldn't be paying anything after you left so he would be foolish to do that while collecting nothing. Once he does re-rent you would only owe for the period that the unit was unrented plus appropriate expenses involved in re-renting the unit.

If that doesn't give you a hint I'll spell it out for you.

You have two options. Pay him what he wants or don't pay him anything.

Leave when you have to. You'll be in breach of contract anyway so why throw away your money. You could give him a letter (with the keys and your new address) and advise him that he can contact you as soon as he re-rents and you'll take care of the period between the day you left and the day he re-rents as that will be all he's entitled to.

With no money coming he'll have the incentive to re-rent as soon as possible. It would be a rare and foolish landlord that would wait 3.5 months with a vacant rental and then come after you for the money where collecting from anybody would be problematic.

If you pay him what he wants, (realistically) you'll never see that money again, no matter when he re-rents, despite legal theory to the contrary.

 

[pfan]

At least in my area of PA that exit fee begins to smell like a penalty ...and a LL who makes no serious attempt to mitigate might have a bad day at DJ level to enforce that "fee" .

I would suggest OP make a effort to find a replacement of equal financial ability to pay

Carefully worded liquidated damages might slide past the penalty issue

It's not the words that the court looks at, it's the amount.

My total costs to leave is over 8000 dollars. 2 months rent 60 days, and 3.5 months penalty, my rent is 1500

 

[pfan]

I repeat.

Obviously, you wouldn't be paying anything after you left so he would be foolish to do that while collecting nothing. Once he does re-rent you would only owe for the period that the unit was unrented plus appropriate expenses involved in re-renting the unit.

If that doesn't give you a hint I'll spell it out for you.

You have two options. Pay him what he wants or don't pay him anything.

Leave when you have to. You'll be in breach of contract anyway so why throw away your money. You could give him a letter (with the keys and your new address) and advise him that he can contact you as soon as he re-rents and you'll take care of the period between the day you left and the day he re-rents as that will be all he's entitled to.

With no money coming he'll have the incentive to re-rent as soon as possible. It would be a rare and foolish landlord that would wait 3.5 months with a vacant rental and then come after you for the money where collecting from anybody would be problematic.

If you pay him what he wants, (realistically) you'll never see that money again, no matter when he re-rents, despite legal theory to the contrary.

I get it. Unfortunately they have already threatened to ruin my credit. I dont want a judgement against me either. Any battle with them they will go out of their way, to make sure I can't rent again, or get a mortgage.

 

[justalayman]

I was told this would be unjust enrichment, by an attorney, They would be double dipping, they want to charge 3.5 months rent as a penalty.

There is a difference between a termination fee and rent. Just becasue it equals 3.5 months doesn’t mean it is 3.5 months of rent

 

[justalayman]

There is a difference between a termination fee and rent. Just becasue it equals 3.5 months doesn’t mean it is 3.5 months of rent

You can pay the fee or simply skip on the lease and be subjected to the consequences of that.

 

[justalayman]

Pennsylvania does not impose a duty to mitigate on a landlord.

Stonehedge Square Ltd. P'ship v. Movie Merchants, Inc., 715 A.2d 1082 (Pa. 1998).

The landlord would have no obligation to re-rent and could leave the rental unoccupied for the remainder of your lease and charge you accordingly.

Obviously, you wouldn't be paying anything after you left so he would be foolish to do that while collecting nothing. Once he does re-rent you would only owe for the period that the unit was unrented plus appropriate expenses involved in re-renting the unit.

I’ve found law that disagrees with you. Not sure I can find it again. I believe it was in 1992 or 1994. Something about a landlord suing for the entirely of the remainder of the lease using the argument no duty to mitigate. The decision came back that old law was no longer appropriately applicable (up to then cases cited were from the late 1800’s)

 

[pfan]

You can pay the fee or simply skip on the lease and be subjected to the consequences of that.

Yes. Although the fee has to be justifiable, if the landlord finds a tenant and is not at a loss, A judge might now allow this. Its is equal to 3 months of rent, I didnt say it was rent. Hence the term "unjustifiable enrichment" Plus the fact that my lease just renewed, its 8 days old.

 

[pfan]

I’ve found law that disagrees with you. Not sure I can find it again. I believe it was in 1992 or 1994. Something about a landlord suing for the entirely of the remainder of the lease using the argument no duty to mitigate. The decision came back that old law was no longer appropriately applicable (up to then cases cited were from the late 1800’s)

I did find that also, the landlord is under no duty to mitigate his losses, but if he DOES find another tenant, his losses are mitigated, and he can't sue for unjust enrichment. or something to that affect.

https://www.leagle.com/decision/199427522padampc4th2531238

The above is what your looking for?


Also the lease was ending anyway, I missed the notice to not renew by 8 days. was due July 31st, I notified than on Aug 9th.

 

[justalayman]

Yes. Although the fee has to be justifiable, if the landlord finds a tenant and is not at a loss, A judge might now allow this. Its is equal to 3 months of rent, I didnt say it was rent. Hence the term "unjustifiable enrichment" Plus the fact that my lease just renewed, its 8 days old.

You are confusing a fee with rent


There are costs associated with an early termination a landlord would not incur had there been no breach. That is where a fee is imposed.. it is often called “liquidated damages”. It also allows you to cleanly severe the relationship without any legal baggage to follow you

 

[justalayman]

I did find that also, the landlord is under no duty to mitigate his losses, but if he DOES find another tenant, his losses are mitigated, and he can't sue for unjust enrichment. or something to that affect.

https://www.leagle.com/decision/199427522padampc4th2531238

The above is what your looking for?


Also the lease was ending anyway, I missed the notice to not renew by 8 days. was due July 31st, I notified than on Aug 9th.

Yes that’s the one

It still doesn’t address an early teriination fee. That addressed the landlords right to refuse to mitigate damages which resulted in mandating the landlord to re-rent the place so as to not be subject to lost rent.

The result of that case, even if not explicitly stated, is that a landlord must mitigate their damages. Otherwise the court would have found for the landlord and awarded him the entirety of the lease since he was allowed to simply let the unit stand empty.


If there was no duty to mitigate, they would have awarded the full amount sought since that is what was owed. If the landlord later relet the unit it would allow the former tenant an action to recover any rent for a period there were two effective tenants.

 

[pfan]

Yes that’s the one

It still doesn’t address an early teriination fee. That addressed the landlords right to refuse to mitigate damages which resulted in mandating the landlord to re-rent the place so as to not be subject to lost rent.

The result of that case, even if not explicitly stated, is that a landlord must mitigate their damages. Otherwise the court would have found for the landlord and awarded him the entirety of the lease since he was allowed to simply let the unit stand empty.


If there was no duty to mitigate, they would have awarded the full amount sought since that is what was owed. If the landlord later relet the unit it would allow the former tenant an action to recover any rent for a period there were two effective tenants.

And also the new lease is 10 days old, I just missed my notice to not renew by 10 days, certainly 3.5 months times the rental amount is not justified. I could have contacted them 10 days earlier and had no termination fee. How can they justify the fee?

They are also forcing me to stay an additional month past my lease ending date of Sept 31st, since they want 2 months notice.

BTW they are specifically calling it a lease break fee, not an early termination fee.

 

[justalayman]

And also the new lease is 10 days old, I just missed my notice to not renew by 10 days, certainly 3.5 months times the rental amount is not justified. I could have contacted them 10 days earlier and had no termination fee. How can they justify the fee?

They are also forcing me to stay an additional month past my lease ending date of Sept 31st, since they want 2 months notice.

It isn’t a matter of justified. It is a matter of: is it within the contract and is it unlawful for any reason.

The reason termination fees are placed in leases is to make it so the landlord doesn’t have to justify the amount as long as the laws in place allow the amount charged.
I haven’t found anything limiting the amount of the fee. Unless there is, it is what it is. It is a contract you willingly entered into. It’s hard to argue against it simply because now you’re being held to it


And your 8 days late is like being s little bit pregnant. There is no gradient. You either are or you aren’t.


And yes, if you had given notice earlier you wouldn’t be in the position

But you didn’t give notice earlier so it doesn’t matter.