Former Roommates and Utilities

[AmandaJS]

I lived in an apartment with two other people, a male and a female, for three months. The situation got so bad with the male and I that I felt I was forced to move out. Unfortunately, I have not found anyone to take my place so I'm still paying rent at that place as well as my new place. My former roommate, the male, is on the verge of suing me because I refuse to pay utilities on the apartment as I am not living there anymore. I never signed a lease or contract with these two roommates saying that if one of us moved out, we would continue to pay utilities. We pay only electric and phone, but the roommate also expects me to pay for the internet service they are subscribed to. I am of the opinion that I only need pay for my third of the rent since that is what the lease said I'm obligated to do, but my former roommate believes that I have a legal responsibility to continue to pay utility bills even though I do not live there or use their utilities. Is there any information you could offer on this? We live in Ames, IA.

 

[JETX]

You are only legally obligated to pay the debts that you agree to, in this case, the rent.

Based on your post, you are NOT a user of the utilities in the apartement and are not legally obligated to pay them. In the event that they were to take you to court though, it could go either way. Some judges (especially small claim) seem to apply their own rule of 'fairness', even if it isn't supported by the law. A judge could decide that it is just 'fair' that you pay for those expenses that might have been entered based on your 'payment'. For example, maybe the two remaining roommates couldn't afford the DSL cost per month, but a joint decision was made to get it based on a three-way split (vs. the more affordable dial-up). Now, with you no longer in the pay-mix, they are no longer able to support the group decision and are on the verge of breaching the provider contract. A judge could take this into consideration and feel that you have an obligation, even though no specific agreement exists.

It would be my suggestion that you negotiate a TOTAL payment to be made for a specific period of time and put it in writing. Shave a month or so off the rental period and put them into a position where they are also looking for a roommate to pick up the 3rd that you will STOP paying in a month or so. Then, get all of it in writing.

 

[Gene Gayda]

I disagree.

The need of a signed document is not clear. A handshake is valid in most states. An agreement to pay utilities while a resident would survive, in many (if not most) instances, until a new agreement is mutually accepted. Even if no longer a resident.

The participating renter is obligated to pay all housing costs that are accepted at the start of the deal. A later individual change of opinion does not necessarily raise to the level of a new deal. Especially if the "new deal" is unilaterally imposed.

Until someone new moves in, the poster is obligated for all utilities including the DSL (and electric, phone, etc.).

Gene

P.S. Since the phone (other than the basic monthly charge) is an "optional" use, the original poster may have some slack in disputing the long distance charges.

 

[JETX]

Okay, so now we have degenerated the board to mind-reading...
The original post clearly says that there is NO lease and NO requirement to pay utilities, and certainly not after she has vacated the premises.

Now, Gayda comes forward and assumes that there is some 'handshake' obligation for these debts, and further that it could be proven!!!

Let me be clear to our original poster... You are under NO legal obligation to pay for ANYTHING that you did not agree to do. And, any claims to the contrary would have to be PROVEN in court. Remember, they (the former roommates) would have the burden of proving that you are obligated for these expenses.... and in the absence of any obligation, that would be very hard to do.

 

[Gene Gayda]

Let’s get to the part where we agree first.

“You are under NO legal obligation to pay for ANYTHING that you did not agree to do.” Halket

Yep. We both seem to be saying this.

Now, to the parts where we see differently.

“The original post clearly says that there is NO lease” Halket

The lack of a written lease would release the poster from rent duty in the relationship to the ultimate landlord (assuming proper written departure notice was given to the ultimate landlord). But even that’s not completely clear ‘cuz the poster says “I only need pay for my third of the rent since that is what the lease said I'm obligated to do.” AmandaJS

So, there’s a written document between the tenants to the ultimate landlord. And, further, that lease probably makes the renters responsible for utilities (as versus already paid for by the landlord), else the poster would not be asking.

“and NO requirement to pay utilities” Halket

Somebody other than the landlord is supposed to pay for utilities. Most likely, there also is a set of verbal agreements among the tenants themselves. Now, I’ll grant you I made a few assumptions based on my experience in the industry. Most joint tenants agree to share things equally. Each will pay a portion of the utilities such as gas, electric, DSL, monthly phone charges. The original poster, at minimum, seemed to concur on the electric and phone.

“I never signed a lease or contract with these two roommates saying that if one of us moved out, we would continue to pay utilities” AmandaJS

A written instrument is required only in a few instances. The poster is not describing a landlord - tenant relationship, per se. In almost all states (would say all, but haven’t memorized all 50), joint and severable tenants are not required by written law to document the relationship among themselves with a written instrument.

While I invite the original poster to clarify, it would seem logical that, while residing, the three tenants shared the cost of the DSL. Much like any other utility. The only thing different is that DSL is a new “utility.”

So what we have is a verbal agreement (handshake) that the tenants will share utilities. One tenant has moved out and now wants to unilaterally change the agreement. The problem with a verbal agreement is that many “what ifs” are not clearly explained. Specifically, the “what if” of what happens if one moves out.

“You are under NO legal obligation to pay for ANYTHING that you did not agree to do.” Halket

I will again agree with your statement. But, awaiting clarification from the original poster, it does seem that there was an agreement to pay for utilities - at least for the time of residence.

“they (the former roommates) would have the burden of proving that you are obligated for these expenses” Halket

If this were ever to go to court, a judge would ask “Did you pay these utilities while you lived there?” If the poster’s answer is “No,” then I’ll fold my tent and completely defer to your answer. If the poster’s answer is “Yes,” then we have a possible proof of the existence of an agreement due to something called “performance.”

So, I’ll stand by my original statement. “An agreement to pay utilities while a resident would survive, in many (if not most) instances, until a new agreement is mutually accepted. Even if no longer a resident.”


Gene

 

[JETX]

You keep giving far more support for some alleged claim of utility-sharing, when there clearly is NOTHING to support that claim. (I assume we all agree that 'handshake deals' are very weak without SOME basis to support them.)

Based on the original post, it sounds like this 'arrangement' was not clearly defined, nor was it clearly understood by all parties. If it were, we wouldn't be where we are now. What we have is a dispute between parties. That dispute may not be resolved without legal process. Accordingly, it is strongly likely that the probable plaintiffs in this action will NOT be able to show the court that there was any specific obligations.

 

[Gene Gayda]

"You keep giving far more support for some alleged claim of utility-sharing, when there clearly is NOTHING to support that claim." Halket

“I never signed a lease or contract with these two roommates saying that if one of us moved out, we would ***continue*** to pay utilities” AmandaJS [Emphasis added]

While honoring your constitutional right to proclaim an alternate opinion, I respectfully disagree.

Gene