Landlord Taking Deposit Due To "Sub-leasing hardship"??

[lukeamotion]

Hey Guys:

I live in Northport, AL and my wife and I decide to separate and I moved out. At the request of my wife, I allowed her to stay in the home to make things easier on her with the intent to sub-lease to her.

I contact my landlord and informed her of the sub-lease situation and she claimed that "she didn't sign up for this" she is going to be taking $150 of my $800 deposit since she'll have to redo paperwork. (My lease does specify that I am allowed to sub-lease.) I was obviously upset at this and started discussing it with my landlord and she mentioned 3 things she could/would use as leverage if necessary. They were:

1) Two dogs on the property when I was only allowed one.
So yes, technically I had two dogs in the home and the lease only allowed for one. There was a period of 7 days where I had my dog and my wife adopted a new puppy. It was during this time that my landlord came to discuss the sub-lease with my wife and became aware of the two dogs. Absolutely zero damage has been done due to either dog. I moved out and took my dog with me. The landlord said nothing about having two dogs in the home until the discussion of the $150 'hardship fee' came up.

2) Landlord Informed Me of Late Rent -
I was unaware of this until my landlord told me, but when I looked at my automatic payments on my banks website it was true that they had been arriving 3-7 days after the rent was due when the rent was required to be no later than 5 days.

3) I vacated the property.
My landlord used the fact that I (not my wife) had vacated the property and thus violated the lease agreement.

It seems as though since no money was lost due to my lease violations that the landlord shouldn't be able to claim any part of my deposit. All three of these "violations" are bogus in my opinion and just cop out reasons that the landlord is using as leverage under the assumption that I won't fight it in small claims court.

I'm fearful that my landlord may actually take MORE of the deposit when the time comes this weekend for them to actually let me out of the lease.

Do I have any ground to stand on here?

Thank you!

 

[Gail in Georgia]

"1) Two dogs on the property when I was only allowed one.
So yes, technically I had two dogs in the home and the lease only allowed for one. There was a period of 7 days where I had my dog and my wife adopted a new puppy. It was during this time that my landlord came to discuss the sub-lease with my wife and became aware of the two dogs. Absolutely zero damage has been done due to either dog. I moved out and took my dog with me. The landlord said nothing about having two dogs in the home until the discussion of the $150 'hardship fee' came up."

Not "technically". Positively. You had two dogs. Your lease allowed for one.

"2) Landlord Informed Me of Late Rent -
I was unaware of this until my landlord told me, but when I looked at my automatic payments on my banks website it was true that they had been arriving 3-7 days after the rent was due when the rent was required to be no later than 5 days."

Since your landlord has accepted the rent (although late) it's a good argument for you that they now cannot claim late fees.


"3) I vacated the property.
My landlord used the fact that I (not my wife) had vacated the property and thus violated the lease agreement."

Actually, you did break your lease by vacating the property.

Your landlord now has to go through the process of determining if your wife can afford the rental property on her own. If she cannot, they have to find suitable replacements for you two. Until then you continue to owe rent until your lease would normally expire. Subleasing does not mean that the first person you find (even if it's your wife shouldering the full responsibility of the rent) is a suitable replacement tenant. The bottom line is that your landlord does not have to let you out of your side of the lease.

Gail

 

[TinkerBelleLuvr]

If they were married, wasn't the lease written with both of them on it? If only party, that is really odd.