Help - Landlord now telling us they will not rent to the new tenant unless we sign a lease termination agreement and pay a fee

[Shalzbot]

What is the name of your state? California

Trying to make a long story short...

We bought a home and are breaking our lease. I think we're about 10 months in to our one year. We gave 30 days notice, personally advertised and found new tenants which were accepted by the leasing agency, and left the property in exceptional condition. We have paid through the end of the month (well past our 30 day) and the new tenants are to take occupancy on the first next month, so there's no gap in rent.

A few days AFTER vacating and returning the keys, we are being told by the leasing agency that they cannot countersign the lease with the new tenants until we sign a "lease termination agreement". This lease termination agreement basically does NOT terminate the lease, but includes a fee of over $600. We are being told this fee "makes the owners whole." After several rounds of emails to them and a frustrating phone call my wife made, they are offering to lower the fee to $300, but it is still not a true lease termination agreement as it does not terminate it.

Having looked up California civil codes, it looks like we do not need to sign this new paperwork, and that they are also compelled now to lease to the new tenants which they have already accepted.

Can anyone please advise me on how to proceed? If we do not sign can they legally mess with us in other ways by taking funds out of our hefty deposit? I don't believe they can purposefully stall on leasing to the new tenants now that we have been informed that they were accepted? It feels like we are being extorted.

Much thanks in advance!

 

[Gail in Georgia]

"If we do not sign can they legally mess with us in other ways by taking funds out of our hefty deposit? "

They may try this; no one here can predict if they will. You can of course sue for these funds if they do; you would need to decide if doing this over $300 is worth it.

Frankly, I'd pay the $300 and be done with them.

Gail

 

[adjusterjack]

Can anyone please advise me on how to proceed?

Sure. Sign the form and pay the $300.

If we do not sign can they legally mess with us in other ways by taking funds out of our hefty deposit?

Yes. You're in breach of contract. You're the bad guy. With that comes potential financial consequences. The LL can apply your deposit to any costs incurred in re-renting.

I don't believe they can purposefully stall on leasing to the new tenants now that we have been informed that they were accepted?

The LL would be foolish to do that as CA law requires the LL to mitigate.

It feels like we are being extorted.

Might feel like that. Might even be true. But it's legal. As I wrote earlier, you breached, you're the bad guy.

Can't imagine why people think they can break leases with impunity.

 

[xylene]

Can't imagine why people think they can break leases with impunity.

Cant imagine why landlords feel it is appropriate to insert fees into an already executed contract either.

Either the breakage fee is in the lease or not.

Either the landlord has provable damages or not.

 

[justalayman]

Xylene

I don’t see any mention of a right to terminate clause mentioned. It would appear op thinks that he can simply terminate at will and was gracious in providing a 30 day notice.


While I don’t agree with what the landlord is doing, until the lease is formally terminated, it remains in effect. If op fails to pay rent due, he is subject to eviction. It doesn’t really matter that he has already left.

So, until the landlord reclaims the unit under the abandonment clause of the law or op is evicted, the lease is still in effect


I think the smart money is on paying the $300 and moving on. The landlord can play with the op and cause him considerable injury if this isn’t cut short now.

 

[adjusterjack]

Cant imagine why landlords feel it is appropriate to insert fees into an already executed contract either.

He's not.

He's negotiating a settlement with the breaching party. Nothing wrong with that.

 

[xylene]

See, why you are all wrong is the landlord needed to do that before agreeing to and accepting the replacement tenants. ie being made completely whole.

I'm sure the OP's best course it to pay the landlord, but this isn't anything more than a cash grab and an oversight in the original lease and when the OP gave notice of their intent.

There is no 'impunity' - the landlord had no damages, and did not include the fee as a contractual remedy. "We are going to turn away the replacement tenants we agreed to unless you pay a fee ." Is not a negotiation nor damages. The landlord is not entitled to anything more than being made whole, something that already happened.

 

[justalayman]

See, why you are all wrong is the landlord needed to do that before agreeing to and accepting the replacement tenants. ie being made completely whole.

I'm sure the OP's best course it to pay the landlord, but this isn't anything more than a cash grab and an oversight in the original lease and when the OP gave notice of their intent.

There is no 'impunity' - the landlord had no damages, and did not include the fee as a contractual remedy. "We are going to turn away the replacement tenants we agreed to unless you pay a fee ." Is not a negotiation nor damages. The landlord is not entitled to anything more than being made whole, something that already happened.

The landlord cannot contract with new tenants until the current lease has been terminated. Well, he can but it’s foolish. To many tenants have said they are going to leave and didn’t when the time came putting the landlord in a very bad spot.

Its not terminated until there is a contractual ending in the current lease, there is a signed agreement terminating the lease, or the courts acknowledge termination during eviction proceedings


It’s a catch 22 and it can hurt the op if the landlord wants to play.

 

[FarmerJ]

Have you driven by the place at night when its dark enough to be able to see lights or TV flicker from the inside (signs of someone else already living there ? )