Breaking lease early, unjust enrichment in Pa

[pfan]

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.

Yes as usual, Im being given different advice by attorneys, one said it would be unjust enrichment especially if they rented right away, the fee is obviously a fee for breaking the lease. It had something to do with a doctrine of fairness in contract law. I have found its harder to find a good attorney than a good auto mechanic.

I have also been a landlord, and always been fair with my tenants. One question the judge usually asks, is did you try to rent the properly. It seems a lease break feel can be taken as a penalty for damages. Pa law isn't entirely clear.

 

[justalayman]

Yes as usual, Im being given different advice by attorneys, one said it would be unjust enrichment especially if they rented right away, the fee is obviously a fee for breaking the lease. It had something to do with a doctrine of fairness in contract law. I have found its harder to find a good attorney than a good auto mechanic.

I have also been a landlord, and always been fair with my tenants. One question the judge usually asks, is did you try to rent the properly. It seems a lease break feel can be taken as a penalty for damages. Pa law isn't entirely clear.

Again. You confuse mitigating damages by seeking new tenants with a contractually agreed upon early termination fee. They are not the same thing and do not cover the same issues.

Of course you can simply walk away. Expect to be sued for any lost rent as well as advertising costs and end up with a judgment on your record.

That is what the early term fee prevents. It allows you to severe the contract with no lingering obligations.

Early term fees are found in many different contracts, other than residential tenancy. They are not all that unusual. It allows for a predefined means to end the contract early. Without it it can get very messy



And it isn’t a fee for breaking the lease. It is an included means of mutual termination of the lease. If you simply bresk the lease the landlord would sue you for damages such as lost rent

 

[pfan]

Again. You confuse mitigating damages by seeking new tenants with a contractually agreed upon early termination fee. They are not the same thing and do not cover the same issues.

Of course you can simply walk away. Expect to be sued for any lost rent as well as advertising costs and end up with a judgment on your record.

That is what the early term fee prevents. It allows you to severe the contract with no lingering obligations.

Early term fees are found in many different contracts, other than residential tenancy. They are not all that unusual. It allows for a predefined means to end the contract early. Without it it can get very messy



And it isn’t a fee for breaking the lease. It is an included means of mutual termination of the lease. If you simply bresk the lease the landlord would sue you for damages such as lost rent

Its specifically called a lease break fee, its says so on the lease, so it isn't a fee for breaking the lease? That doesn't make sense.

 

[justalayman]

Its specifically called a lease break fee, its says so on the lease, so it isn't a fee for breaking the lease? That doesn't make sense.

I equate breaking a lease with a breach of the lease. Acting within the terms of,the lease would not be a breach but an allowed early termination of the lease. You would not be breaking the lease becasue you would be in compliance with the lease even in your act of terminating it before it’s natural expiration.

 

[pfan]

Why isn't it called that then? What are they specifically calling for 3.5 times my rental as a calculation. They have to be able to justify what the fee is for, from what I understand.

It would be breaking the lease, as by not responding. in time the lease was renewed, so at this point, I have new lease in place. I have to break it.

Thats what the letter was renewal was for. It said specifically that if I did not respond by July31st, the lease was renewed. so right now I have a new lease, in place. ( have had for 10 days at this point. )


So far one attorney said a good argument can be made that its unreasonable, the other said it would be unjust enrichment, it it was rented shortly.

 

[justalayman]

Why isn’t it called that.? I didn’t write it so I can’t say but my best guess is it was written to be more understandable to a layman (but in my opinion doesn’t do so) or the writer used terminology I believe to be incorrect which has led to confusion

Again, just because they calculate the amount as a matter of monthly rent times 3.5, it does not make it a replacement for rent. It is an agreed upon figure so unless the courts can nullify that obligation on some basis such as it is simply excessive (again, not becasue it is 3.5times your monthly rent but because the amount itself is excessive), I don’t agree that unjust enrichment applies. This is not an unwarranted windfall. The landlord is damaged and you did agree to the amount st the inception of the lease.


Your argument it is unreasonable because the lease has just begun is wrong. It wouldn’t matter if the lease was 10:days old or 6 months old. You are seeking to terminate the lease prematurely and the costs to the landlord would be the same. The particular clause in the lease providing the amount is also the same

Additionally, although I believe the case you cited does impose an obligation to mitigate their damages, apparently some newer law sees things differently and states there is no obligation for the landlord to mitigate damages (the case cited involved a commercial lease and did not address the situstion in a residential lease setting but that case seems to be cited by several as being applicable to residential leases as well) , if one applies the case (it’s the one jack posted previously), you’re on the hook for entire lease unless the landlord feels like repenting the place. So, if there is no obligation to mitigate damages, if the early termination clause is found to be unenforceable, that leaves you on the hook for however long the landlord wants to leave the place empty. You seem to believe that,a court will simply reduce the amount you have to pay. While that is possible, the landlord could argue, or the court take it upon themeselves to decide that the early termination clause is simply enenforcsble as written and void. That means no amount of of money short of the entire amount if the lease will be enough to get you free from this issue.

 

[pfan]

The lease was ending anyway, so what difference does the 10 days make, I agreed to stay an additional month.

The costs to the landlord are the same, there is zero difference, whether or not I signed the renewal on time, its 10 days.

How is the landlord damaged? They are not. If they get a new tenant. There are no additional costs. What is their specific damage, by me not advising them 10 days earlier? Especially if they find a tenant. What did they lose in those 10 days?

The end date was Sept 31st, so i would have left anyway, by not signing the renewal 10 days earlier, the landlord can't prove by me signing 10 days late that he was damaged. Any more than if I had left anyway.

"that leaves you on the hook for however long the landlord wants to leave the place empty"

There may be no obligation to mitigate damages, but they will be foolish to leave the apt unrented, while they try to collect from me. They rent quickly, what landlord would leave the unit unrented, and hope the tenant pays a judgement?

I have owned properties before and know many landlords, one of the first questions a judge asks is did you rerent, the apt and when.

They shouldn't have called it a lease break fee, its not called an early termination clause, now they have to show why its applicable, if they rent the unit right away and damages are mitigated.

 

[justalayman]

It doesn’t matter the lease was ending,other than it renewed due to your inaction.


Seriously, I’m not the guy you neeed to be arguing with. The law is clear: you have a lease in place. Regardless of it being only 10 days old, you have a lease and that’s all that matters.

And if there is no obligation to mitigate damages, if the judge asks: did you rerent the place and when, legally the answer doesn’t matter because the judge can not ignore the law and impose some arbitrary requirement to rerent the apartment and penalize the landlord if he didn’t.. the judge is required to impose the laws as accepted in your state. Failure to do so provides a basis for an appeal.


If I was your landlord I would say pay the fee or the lease remains intact. At $1500 per month, that would mean you owe me $18000 minute you walk away. Then I would sue you for that. I would find every case that supported no obligation to mitigate damages and head to court.

You can try to argue the early term fee is excesssive and I would defend with: I’m not seeking payment of the early term fee so the enforceability is a moot point. I’m seeking payment for the payment of the lease.

 

[pfan]

I appreciate your comments. the point I was making is that they will rerent the unit quickly, they cant sue me and collect rent at the same time and profit from both.

If they rent it they mitigated their own damages.

They are under no obligation to mitigate maybe, but no one is going to keep the unit unrented, for a judgement that will never be paid.

Getting a judgement has no value, people ignore judgements all the time, you cant even garnish wages in Pa. I have had judgments against people before its useless. They simply don't care. Or they go BK.

So you would sue me for the full balance, and let the apartment remain vacant for a year?

Hoping at some point the judgement will be paid?, It won't I assure you.

It will also cost you money, to sue for a judgement that will never get paid. I had to pay 3500 to get 9000, a loan, I lend someone, they finally agreed to pay in installments, but thats not always the case.

So you would sue for 12,000 the max in Pa, Probably pay an attorney at least 2500, an appeal would cost double, for a judgement that will never be paid, all the while not renting your property, losing 1500 per month?

So you would risk, 20,000 to 23,000, to get a judgement against someone, for 18,000 that probably won't be paid. it can also be eliminated by a bankruptcy?

I have had that happen to me before, we sued a contractor, got a judgement, he went Bk, so we couldn't collect.

 

[justalayman]

You’re right, they cannot sue you for rent if they rerent the place. That is not allowed but that doesn’t mean they don’t have some level of damages they can still sue you for. A smart landlord would rent the place. After all, that is their business model



Judgments can be quite meaningful. It shows up on their credit report and can wreak havoc for 10 years. Sometimes that is enough.


And one may not be able to garnish wages, there are a lot of non exempt asssets that are accessible in Pennsylvania. Sometimes one must be crafty and diligent, most people end up exposing something the don’t reslly want to lose

 

[pfan]

I appreciate your comments. Interesting to discuss.

The apartment is immaculate, they haven't changed the rugs in 20 years, can't see a valid claim for damages. Ill give them a grand or 2 not 5000

Judgments certainly are a burden, but a BK will eliminate them, you can even buy a house, 2 years out of BK.

The lease also doesn't allow me to sublease, either,

Im hoping some decency, and willingness to work with a long term tenant will prevail.

I always worked with my tenants, and didn't take advantage of their situation, but I'm a fairly nice guy, most people are not.

Your right there is an existing lease, I just didnt know until Aug 10th, that I had to leave.

I actually know a few collections agents, they dont want your crap, they have no cost effective ability to store your stuff, and try to sell it at auction. I don't own any real estate, all sold years ago.

 

[justalayman]

Be aware of what the landlord can charge you for a few things.


The carpet is so old it has no value. Typical depreciation is about 5-7 years to 0 value. At 20 years you’re way beyond the most liberal allowance for depreciation.

Paint has about 2-3 year life so that’s where they can’t charge you for general painting

They can always charge for actual damages but not wear and tear