• 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.

Is the landlord neglecting a duty to mitigate damages?

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

alexander468

Active Member
What is the name of your state? Massachusetts

I am the sole lessee on the lease. The lease includes the added statement: "lessee to submit credit application to lessor or to lessor's agent for any roommate considered for occupancy" in addition to the boilerplate ban on subletting without the landlord's permission.

For my first lease in 2008, I split the moving-in costs of last-month's rent and security (total of two months rent) with my first roommate who knew he would be leaving before the end of the first year. I've asked all subsequent roommates to pay me half of last month's rent and half of the security in addition to half of the first month's rent as moving-in costs. I've had roommate agreements resembling the equivalent of a month-by-month subtenancy-at-will with multiple people over the past ten years. I've always submitted their credit application to the landlord's agent during that time, and I've returned all roommates' security deposits.

This paragraph can most likely be neglected from a legal standpoint. I was laid off in 2009, my subsequent income has not kept up with rent increases, I've accrued debt, and I'm no longer able to afford the apartment without a roommate. Yes, when these circumstances changed, that was the time I should have not signed next year's lease and moved into a cheaper apartment. But hope springs eternal that next year will provide more income than last year...and it often has in the past.

My most recent roommate chose the inopportune month of April as his last month, I was unable to find a replacement before May 1, and I was unable to pay rent on May 1. A potential roommate submitted his credit application on May 7 for a moving-in-date in mid-May, and he was approved to occupy the apartment but only under the condition that he pay no funds to me either for moving-in costs or for May rent and that all rent for both of us must now come from him. This demand was not given to my potential roommate in the context of him taking over my lease, and the demand seems to be in violation of the lease which says that rent will be paid by me...which of course, for May, it hasn't.

When the potential incoming roommate asked me why this demand was being placed on him, I informed him that May 1 rent was unpaid, and, of course, he changed his mind about living here. Doesn't the landlord have a duty to try to mitigate damages I've caused through late rent payment by approving a roommate in the way we've done it before? Or does the landlord have a greater duty to the incoming roommate to protect him from a temporarily deadbeat leaseholder?
 


adjusterjack

Senior Member
Doesn't the landlord have a duty to try to mitigate damages I've caused through late rent payment by approving a roommate in the way we've done it before?
I don't think mitigation has anything to do with your situation. As long as your lease requires the LL's consent I think that the LL can make that consent conditional, especially since you are already in default on the rent money. I don't think that what has gone before has any bearing on what is happening now because what has gone before was based on one set of circumstances (you paying the rent on time) and what is happening now is based on a different set of circumstances (you being in default on the rent).

Or does the landlord have a greater duty to the incoming roommate to protect him from a temporarily deadbeat leaseholder?
No, of course not. The LL has no duty to protect the incoming roommate from anything.
 

xylene

Senior Member
You need to ask you landlord for terms so you can move to a cheaper apartment. The legal problem you have is you have no reserves and been teetering on the brink of total insolvency for at least 8 years as you tell it. Roommate credit checks have nothing to do with that.
 

alexander468

Active Member
I don't think mitigation has anything to do with your situation. As long as your lease requires the LL's consent I think that the LL can make that consent conditional, especially since you are already in default on the rent money. I don't think that what has gone before has any bearing on what is happening now because what has gone before was based on one set of circumstances (you paying the rent on time) and what is happening now is based on a different set of circumstances (you being in default on the rent).
Thanks for your answer. Is it your view that, because I violated the lease first in my favor, it is a legal tactic for the LL to make consent for a roommate depend on a lease violation in his favor?
 

alexander468

Active Member
You need to ask you landlord for terms so you can move to a cheaper apartment. The legal problem you have is you have no reserves and been teetering on the brink of total insolvency for at least 8 years as you tell it. Roommate credit checks have nothing to do with that.
Where did you read that I've been teetering on the brink of total insolvency for at least 8 years? After I was laid off, I started a business that grew until I'd nearly recovered the same income as when I had a full time job. Then the business shrank and other things happened that are too dull to mention. I have been teetering on the brink of total insolvency for about a year and a half. I don't recommend it, but it's better than being insolvent.
 

adjusterjack

Senior Member
Thanks for your answer. Is it your view that, because I violated the lease first in my favor, it is a legal tactic for the LL to make consent for a roommate depend on a lease violation in his favor?
Let me answer it this way.

You defaulted on the rent (and still haven't paid it). In the landlord's eyes you've become unreliable and a big risk. Trust me, it takes only once. The landlord is doing nothing wrong, nothing illegal, nothing in breach of contract by making consent contingent on getting paid by someone reliable.

And your prospect walked because he didn't want to deal with somebody who defaulted on the rent, that's not the landlord's fault.
 

alexander468

Active Member
Let me answer it this way...In the landlord's eyes...
Got it. You've explained the situation in the landord's eyes.

Is it also your view that a housing court judge in Massachusetts would view a rent payment 10 days late after 10 years of tenancy as an indicator that a tenant is sufficiently unreliable for a landlord to take steps that will obviously further prevent the timely payment of rent and thus make the tenant even more unreliable? Would that depend on whether the housing court judge is a landlord or a tenant? There is absolutely no chance in your eyes that a housing court judge would find the landlord's behavior to be self-defeating and retributory because Massachusetts housing court judges have your eyes.
 

Mass_Shyster

Senior Member
Talk to a Massachusetts tenant's rights attorney.

I doubt the landlord has complied with the (onerous) security deposit statute, leaving himself open to treble damages plus attorney fees.

The requirements the landlord imposed on YOUR tenant could be construed as interference with your contract.
 

HRZ

Senior Member
AS a retired LL, I agree the LL is pushing your contract language , in effect a modification of your contract to allow a sub or co tenant ...but whether it's a step too far is up for debate ....as a practical matter, by "intimidation language " imposed upon prospective sub or co tenant the LL is cutting his own options as to recovery if you falter again ...I get it that LL has reason to be nervous but I think there are smarter ways to word a modification so as to get the second pocketbook also linked .
 

justalayman

Senior Member
you Have this situation all wrong. While the landlord has the right to approve or disapprove a roommate, he has no right to demand payment from a roommate or deny you collecting security deposits but...

Your real problem is this;

When the potential incoming roommate asked me why this demand was being placed on him, I informed him that May 1 rent was unpaid, and, of course, he changed his mind about living here.
You’re upset because the prospective roommate discovered you are having financial difficulties and are actually in jeopardy of being evicted currently and simply doesn’t want to be stuck in such a situation. You are trying to blame the wrong person here. You being delinquent in your rent is what caused the roommate to not accept the situation.


Unless you can prove you have an absolute right to engage a rooomate and the landlord acted with intent to harm you, you’re fighting a losing battle.
 

alexander468

Active Member
Your real problem is....You’re upset because....
I always appreciate it when an anonymous magical person online informs me what my real problem is and why I am upset. I think you will believe me when I write that I am upset for multiple reasons and have multiple real problems at this particular moment in my life. I am grateful for your in-depth analysis, but I am here in this forum asking a specific legal question about landlord/tenant issues. If there's a "here's why you're really upset" forum, let me know about it, and maybe I'll join you there so one of us can have a good time.

While the landlord has the right to approve or disapprove a roommate, he has no right to demand payment from a roommate or deny you collecting security deposits.
Thanks for your view on the question I was asking. I appreciate you sneaking it in there somewhere!
 

Just Blue

Senior Member
I always appreciate it when an anonymous magical person online informs me what my real problem is and why I am upset. I think you will believe me when I write that I am upset for multiple reasons and have multiple real problems at this particular moment in my life. I am grateful for your in-depth analysis, but I am here in this forum asking a specific legal question about landlord/tenant issues. If there's a "here's why you're really upset" forum, let me know about it, and maybe I'll join you there so one of us can have a good time.



Thanks for your view on the question I was asking. I appreciate you sneaking it in there somewhere!
I suggest you stop the rude comments to the people kind enough to VOLUNTEER to assist you. You are fortunate enough to have a Mass Attorney posting on your thread...The members here are off-put when those seeking advice are rude.
 

adjusterjack

Senior Member
Got it. You've explained the situation in the landord's eyes.

Is it also your view that a housing court judge in Massachusetts would view a rent payment 10 days late after 10 years of tenancy as an indicator that a tenant is sufficiently unreliable for a landlord to take steps that will obviously further prevent the timely payment of rent and thus make the tenant even more unreliable? Would that depend on whether the housing court judge is a landlord or a tenant? There is absolutely no chance in your eyes that a housing court judge would find the landlord's behavior to be self-defeating and retributory because Massachusetts housing court judges have your eyes.
That's funny.

You want me to pat you on the head, tell you that you're right and the nasty old landlord is wrong.

Not gonna happen.

I'll break it down for you.

1 - You breached your contract by not paying your rent.
2 - You should have been served a termination notice for non-pay.
3 - At which point your choices would have been to pay, leave, or be evicted through the courts.
4 - Your LL has given you an opportunity to avoid number 3.
5 - The LL is doing nothing wrong to you. You are the bad guy here. You didn't pay your rent and none of your excuses and convoluted questions are going to change that.

I doubt the landlord has complied with the (onerous) security deposit statute, leaving himself open to treble damages plus attorney fees.
Wrong. The tenant is still in occupancy. The security deposit statute is irrelevant until the tenant surrenders the property and leaves.

The requirements the landlord imposed on YOUR tenant could be construed as interference with your contract.
Also wrong. The tenant breached the contract and the LL is seeking a remedy.

I am here in this forum asking a specific legal question about landlord/tenant issues
We've given them to you and you're obviously not happy that they didn't go your way. If you want further answers to a "specific legal question" I suggest that it's now time for you to consult an attorney.
 

alexander468

Active Member
Talk to a Massachusetts tenant's rights attorney.

I doubt the landlord has complied with the (onerous) security deposit statute, leaving himself open to treble damages plus attorney fees.
This seems to be a separate issue, but I believe the landlord is in compliance (interest bearing escrow account, notification of new balance and option to withdraw interest with every new lease, etc.)

The requirements the landlord imposed on YOUR tenant could be construed as interference with your contract.
That seems more relevant, and I understand it's something I should be discussing offline. Thank you.
 

Mass_Shyster

Senior Member
Wrong. The tenant is still in occupancy. The security deposit statute is irrelevant until the tenant surrenders the property and leaves.
You are clearly not familiar with the Massachusetts security deposit statute. I suggest you read up on the laws before spewing misinformation
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

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