sandyclaus
Senior Member
What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Virginia
Question for someone else (not me).
Tenant has lived in an apartment complex for 6 months, and finds they need to break the lease due to a job relocation out of state. Scheduled move-out date is Feb 28. They were able to find a suitable replacement tenant who has been approved by management, and the new tenant is scheduled to move in on March 1st.
Over the last several months, the property management company changed, as have their leases to new tenants. Tenant's CURRENT lease does not include any mention of a lease break fee, but new leases issued by the new management company now include a fee (equal to one month's rent). Even though the tenant still is covered under their original lease, the management is insisting that the departing tenant must pay a lease break fee before they will extend a lease to the new tenants.
After going back and forth, and informing management that to withhold extending a new lease solely to try to force them to pay a fee that isn't included in their lease would be illegal, management then caved in and issued the new lease to the replacement tenant. Management realizes that the lease break fee isn't stated in the original lease, but they are still insisting that the departing tenant pay that lease break fee. In doing so, they are now quoting a section of the ORIGINAL lease that states the following in order to support their demand:
In MY opinion, such a clause would be unenforceable. It's so vague and ambiguous that management could basically add ANY clause to their new leases, and never even notify the tenants of such a change - then have an unfair advantage of enforcing said unspoken clause upon their exit. Isn't the point of a lease to have a set of terms that both parties are agreed upon? Since that clause doesn't include any kind of notification requirement, it's like the LL saying they can make up the rules as they go along, and the tenants have no choice but to comply. That just seems patently unfair to me.
Does anyone else think that this NEW term in a NEW lease can successfully be applied to the departing tenant under the old lease?
Question for someone else (not me).
Tenant has lived in an apartment complex for 6 months, and finds they need to break the lease due to a job relocation out of state. Scheduled move-out date is Feb 28. They were able to find a suitable replacement tenant who has been approved by management, and the new tenant is scheduled to move in on March 1st.
Over the last several months, the property management company changed, as have their leases to new tenants. Tenant's CURRENT lease does not include any mention of a lease break fee, but new leases issued by the new management company now include a fee (equal to one month's rent). Even though the tenant still is covered under their original lease, the management is insisting that the departing tenant must pay a lease break fee before they will extend a lease to the new tenants.
After going back and forth, and informing management that to withhold extending a new lease solely to try to force them to pay a fee that isn't included in their lease would be illegal, management then caved in and issued the new lease to the replacement tenant. Management realizes that the lease break fee isn't stated in the original lease, but they are still insisting that the departing tenant pay that lease break fee. In doing so, they are now quoting a section of the ORIGINAL lease that states the following in order to support their demand:
"Rules and Regulations. Tenant shall abide by any rules and regulations adopted by Landlord applicable to the dwelling unit and the premises, including any and all updated, and any rules of any property or homeowner, or similar association in which the dwelling unit is located."
In MY opinion, such a clause would be unenforceable. It's so vague and ambiguous that management could basically add ANY clause to their new leases, and never even notify the tenants of such a change - then have an unfair advantage of enforcing said unspoken clause upon their exit. Isn't the point of a lease to have a set of terms that both parties are agreed upon? Since that clause doesn't include any kind of notification requirement, it's like the LL saying they can make up the rules as they go along, and the tenants have no choice but to comply. That just seems patently unfair to me.
Does anyone else think that this NEW term in a NEW lease can successfully be applied to the departing tenant under the old lease?