• 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.

Co-signer changed locks - Locked me out

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

stigger

Junior Member
What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? North Carolina

I co-signed a 13 month lease agreement with my BFF :rolleyes:

I was having difficulty with her because she treated the house like a slum and had no respect for my property, We argued and I said I was going to my parents over Thanksgiving and we'll settle our argumenst when I get back.

When I returned she had change all the locks and had not given a spare to the landord yet.

Since she has effectively evicted me, my question is am I still responsible for the reaming 7 months rent on the lease.
 


Some Random Guy

Senior Member
Since she has effectively evicted me, my question is am I still responsible for the reaming 7 months rent on the lease.
She has not evicted you since she is not the landlord. Your lease agreement is between you and the landlord. Call a locksmith and either get a key made or change the locks. Don't forget to give the landlord a copy.
 

johnd

Member
What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? North Carolina

I co-signed a 13 month lease agreement with my BFF :rolleyes:

I was having difficulty with her because she treated the house like a slum and had no respect for my property, We argued and I said I was going to my parents over Thanksgiving and we'll settle our argumenst when I get back.

When I returned she had change all the locks and had not given a spare to the landord yet.

Since she has effectively evicted me, my question is am I still responsible for the reaming 7 months rent on the lease.
You have been constructively evicted. If you want out, you are best prepared w/ a paper trail. Memorialize to LL that locks have been changed w/o your permission, and you have not been afforded access since 11/27, and that you have been forced to find a new residence. If you can substantiate that you were prevented access (especially since 11/27) and attempted to not only gain access, but obtain keys, this is a slam dunk case. Particularly if your requests are not immediately granted.

Finally, correct your title. The person that constructively evicted you is not merely a "co-signer," but a co-tenant.
 

stigger

Junior Member
Thanks for the advice...yes evicted was the wrong word...
Please confirm that so I won't have to pay remaing lease because of prevented from gaining access to property

BTW I could not change title to co-tenant the edit function would not allow me
 

johnd

Member
Thanks for the advice...yes evicted was the wrong word...
Please confirm that so I won't have to pay remaing lease because of prevented from gaining access to property

BTW I could not change title to co-tenant the edit function would not allow me
That's ultimately up to a judge. I gave my advice above.
 

Zigner

Senior Member, Non-Attorney
Thanks for the advice...yes evicted was the wrong word...
Please confirm that so I won't have to pay remaing lease because of prevented from gaining access to property

BTW I could not change title to co-tenant the edit function would not allow me
johnd is wrong. You have not been "evicted". As you were told, get a new key made and get in to your rented property. This sort of dispute will NOT release you from your obligations to your LL.
 

johnd

Member
johnd is wrong. You have not been "evicted". As you were told, get a new key made and get in to your rented property. This sort of dispute will NOT release you from your obligations to your LL.
Actually...not. Anyone that's ever been in an eviction suit knows what "constructive" eviction is. One needs not be an attorney or a judge to understand that. Apparently, some do not know the term.
 

stigger

Junior Member
All,

OK looks like I'll have to pay ..:mad:

Thanks for all the advice given...I appreciate you taking the time and effort to answer my questions...

Lets all try and get along :)

Sarah
 

Some Random Guy

Senior Member
Johnd,

Please read the original post again. The landlord did nothing to stop the tenant from accessing their apartment. It is not an eviction or a constructive eviction. One roomie being childish to the other.

The original poster can get the landlord involved and ask them to change the locks. The landlord, when asked, should do this for them, but will charge them for the service.
 

johnd

Member
Johnd,

Please read the original post again. The landlord did nothing to stop the tenant from accessing their apartment. It is not an eviction or a constructive eviction. One roomie being childish to the other.

The original poster can get the landlord involved and ask them to change the locks. The landlord, when asked, should do this for them, but will charge them for the service.
I did SRG. Constructive eviction need not come from the LL. Anyone (quite literally) can constructively (but not legally) evict a tenant. The term essentially translates to "effectively," meaning: forced out. It does not mean a legal eviction. A lockout w/o permission and w/o prompt access to keys (from either the LL or cotenant) is unequivocally a constructive eviction. Cut and dried. I'm surprised so many members here do not know that term.
 

johnd

Member
For those interested, here's a paraphrase from Legalmatch:

"What is Constructive Eviction?
What is Constructive Eviction?
Constructive eviction occurs when the landlord acts to keep the tenant from continuing to live in the rental unit. If the landlord doesn’t correct or terminate the flawed situation, and it seriously impedes the tenant’s use and enjoyment of premises, the tenant can abandon such premises with no obligation to pay rent.

How Can Constructive Eviction Occur?
Constructive eviction can be as extreme as physically preventing you from entering your leased property or it can be something the landlord does that makes the premises unlivable. Some examples include:

Changing the locks so that the tenant cannot enter
Blocking the door or driveway
Turning off the heat, electricity or water
A leaky roof that is in danger of collapsing
Where the landlord’s treatment of tenant is intolerable
When Can I Claim Constructive Eviction?
Each state has different laws about constructive eviction. In many places, you must prove the following:

You provided the landlord with notice of the conditions involved
The conditions were so severe that you were forced to leave for health or safety reasons
You did in fact move out of the rented premises"

Thus my caveat for informing the LL and demanding immediate access. A LL's failure to so provide access is constructive eviction. As it stands, w/o any info from the LL or cotenant, perhaps the locks were changed because a burglery (or murder) occured in the premises on the 28th w/ a "spare" set of keys (meaning, no signs of forced entry), and the LL (or cotenant) changed them for safety. That's the most vivid example I can conjure...but I'm just spitballing. At this point the cotenant could claim he did not change the locks...and the LL the same.

Either way, if the LL is put on notice and does not afford immediate access, that is verifiable proof of constructive eviction.
 

Zigner

Senior Member, Non-Attorney
For those interested, here's a paraphrase from Legalmatch:

"What is Constructive Eviction?
What is Constructive Eviction?
Constructive eviction occurs when the landlord acts...
You bolded the wrong portion. What you posted supports the CORRECT legal position - yours is NOT the correct legal position.

The LL can correct this or the OP can. In any case, this is NOT an eviction (constructive or otherwise)
 

Some Random Guy

Senior Member
Johnd,

IF the tenant asks the landlord to change the locks and the landlord refuses, (neither of which happened yet accroding to the poster), then wee can start talking about constructive eviction.

There are far too many ways for the tenant to get in that a constructive eviction claim would be laughed at.
 

johnd

Member
OK. But I'm here to tell you both that ANYONE can constructively evict...not just the LL. And this has occurred if the op attempts to gain keys and is refused.

Point in case: a tree feller could fell a tree into your home rendering it unihabitable. Thta feller has constructively evict you. Is it a crime? Perhaps. Would he owe the tenant $? Perhaps. Either way, he has constructively evicted the tenant, and the tenant is allowed to remove from the premises (in that case).

And I understand that nolo and other websites state the LL can constructively evict (they do not mention cotenants..or others). That doesn't mean constructive eviction and does not and cannot occur w/o the LL. That is the difference between paper and real law. Whatever. You guys have stated your opinions, and I;ve stated mine. Cheers.
 

johnd

Member
Here's some case law for you persistent ne'er-do-wells: ;)

Discussion

Constructive Eviction

¶12 Apex first contends that Todd was not constructively evicted. Apex makes several sub-arguments in support of this contention. We address each of them in turn, after first briefly reciting the basic legal standards applicable to <constructive eviction>s. Whether such standards are met on a given set of facts is a question of law for our de novo review. Waage v. Borer, 188 Wis. 2d 324, 328, 525 N.W.2d 96 (Ct. App. 1994).

¶13 A lease such as Todd's includes an implied covenant of quiet enjoyment. See Hannan v. Harper, 189 Wis. 588, 595, 208 N.W. 255 (1926) ("[T]here is an implied covenant for quiet enjoyment in every lease for a term of less than three years."). A <constructive eviction> occurs when that covenant is breached by some condition, rendering the premises unfit for occupancy for the purposes for which it was leased, or that deprives the tenant of the beneficial enjoyment of the premises. First Wisconsin Trust Co. v. L. Wiemann Co., 93 Wis. 2d 258, 267-68, 286 N.W.2d 360 (1980). The condition must be "substantial and of such duration that it can be said that the tenant has been deprived of the full use and enjoyment of the leased property for a material period of time." Id. at 268 (citations omitted). In addition, the landlord must have notice of the condition, and must have a reasonable time after notice to remedy it. Id. at 268, 270. Finally, the tenant must abandon the premises within a reasonable time. Id. at 268 (quoting Schaaf v. Nortman, 19 Wis. 2d 540, 543, 120 N.W.2d 654 (1963)).


The LL must not have caused the breach, just have notice and fail to remedy it. Get it? Any questions?
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

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