Lease only signed by one party. VALID?

[anabanana]

What is the name of your state? FL

My assistant and his gal were looking for a place, and she got into a pressure-cooker with some property management chap who talked her into signing a lease and turning over the money WITHOUT SEEING the property. I know, it's beyond my comprehension. But that's what happened.

The lease was made out to both of them, however, and neither the property management fellow nor my assistant signed it, but now the guy won't give them their money back. He is insisting that he's entitled to the first month's rent or some such. They never took possession of the property at all, and the lease wasn't even due to start until the 10th of the month.

Is he entitled to ANYthing? It seems to me that he's just trying to bully some money out of them.

Thanks for any insights.

 

[Who's Liable?]

What is the name of your state? FL

My assistant and his gal were looking for a place, and she got into a pressure-cooker with some property management chap who talked her into signing a lease and turning over the money WITHOUT SEEING the property. I know, it's beyond my comprehension. But that's what happened.

Not the LL's fault... You should inquire into hiring the chap...

The lease was made out to both of them, however, and neither the property management fellow nor my assistant signed it,

Wait... let me get this straight. The assistant's GF signed the lease, but the assistant did not? Than the GF is financially responsible for the lease. All the LL has to do now is sign the lease.

but now the guy won't give them their money back. He is insisting that he's entitled to the first month's rent or some such.

HE is correct. He is entitled to the ENTIRE amount due in the lease. The GF signd the lease thereby AGREEING to be financially responsible for the lease for X amount of months at X amount of money.

They never took possession of the property at all,

Does not matter. The GF signed the lease REGARDLESS of actual possession. A person does NOT have to reside in a unit once a lease is signed.

and the lease wasn't even due to start until the 10th of the month.

Again, does not matter. This happens all the time at apartment complexes across the nation. See response above.

Is he entitled to ANYthing?

LL is entitled to the ENTIRE amount of the lease It is NOT his fault the GF was a pushover, no one held a gun to her head. He is trying to get paid.

It seems to me that he's just trying to bully some money out of them.
Thanks for any insights.

Why is it bullying when the GF SIGNED a lease AGREEING to PAY for the unit, and the LL is now trying to collect?

 

[anabanana]

Well, it seems to me that if, by some combination of high-pressure sales, or scare tactics or hypnotic subliminal messages or snake charming (whatever), you slam dunk a weenie into signing a lease for a property that you have not showed them, you realize that you're not really doing square business anyway, and you ought to know that you're assuming the downside of dealing with a weenie, which is that they might unwind in a variety of ways.

An honest, legitimate property manager would not even ask a person to sign a lease for a property sight unseen. That's just dumb. For whatever, reason, this guy feels like it's worth the risk to use the high-pressure schtick. Fine. It's a loose market and there's way too many houses available. He's doing what he can. I'm sure it works out great lots of times. But the downside is that if she's gonna be stupid and wishy-washy with him, she's probably stupid and wishy-washy elsewhere, and he might want to consider the ramifications of the BF having an opinion at some point. i.e., he ought to have more to hang his hat on than one wishy-washy chick.

My asst.'s name is on the lease, but he never signed it, they never took possession of the property, and the dude already rented it to someone else, so where is his damage?

This is Florida. Land of almost no protection for tenants whatsoever, but I did talk to a judge this afternoon who said the PM doesn't have a leg to stand on, and that he'll probably hold out until he gets a call from a lawyer, and then he'll give the money back, because he's looking for a patsy, not a court battle. Apparently, it's not illegal to be a bully, but it's not a protected business practice, either.

 

[Who's Liable?]

Well, it seems to me that if, by some combination of high-pressure sales, or scare tactics or hypnotic subliminal messages or snake charming (whatever), you slam dunk a weenie into signing a lease for a property that you have not showed them, you realize that you're not really doing square business anyway, and you ought to know that you're assuming the downside of dealing with a weenie, which is that they might unwind in a variety of ways.

Ok

An honest, legitimate property manager would not even ask a person to sign a lease for a property sight unseen. That's just dumb.

May be dumb, but it happens all the time. Again, no one held a gun to their heads.

For whatever, reason, this guy feels like it's worth the risk to use the high-pressure schtick. Fine. It's a loose market and there's way too many houses available. He's doing what he can. I'm sure it works out great lots of times. But the downside is that if she's gonna be stupid and wishy-washy with him, she's probably stupid and wishy-washy elsewhere, and he might want to consider the ramifications of the BF having an opinion at some point. i.e., he ought to have more to hang his hat on than one wishy-washy chick.

Ok

My asst.'s name is on the lease, but he never signed it, they never took possession of the property, and the dude already rented it to someone else, so where is his damage?

Which is it, the asst. name IS or IS NOT on the lease? IF there is NO signature of the asst., the lease does NOT apply to him. It only applies to the WRITTEN name and the SIGNATURE. NO possession needs to take place. You're arguing that a person does not have actual possession of an item UNTIL they have it in their hands. If that were true, than online purchases would not exist.

This is Florida. Land of almost no protection for tenants whatsoever, but I did talk to a judge this afternoon who said the PM doesn't have a leg to stand on, and that he'll probably hold out until he gets a call from a lawyer, and then he'll give the money back, because he's looking for a patsy, not a court battle. Apparently, it's not illegal to be a bully, but it's not a protected business practice, either.

That is one judge's opinion. You may get another judge who decides in favor of the PM.

It's a life lesson...

 

[anabanana]

I think the idea of possession is a little different with certain big ticket items. E.g., in some states, you can go through the whole dog and pony show of buying a car, but until you physically get the key and drive that baby off the lot, the sale is not consummated.

And speaking of keys, the LL never gave them the fershlugginer key, and never gave them the clicker to the gate (gated community) because he "had to round those up." He also told them a dog and the cats would be okay, and then the owner of the property said absolutely not.

As to the lease, again, his name is typed on there, anticipating his signature, but he never signed it nor did he ever agree orally to take the joint. Now they've found another place to move to, and the PM won't give them their money back so they can move, whereas HE has already rented this property to another party. So WHO has damages here? And isn't there some prohibition against charging two parties for rent on the same unit...

I think someone is distributing taffy here...

 

[ecmst12]

You left out that the property had been re-rented. That's an important bit of info!

 

[johnd]

The lease was made out to both of them, however, and neither the property management fellow nor my assistant signed it

As a matter of law, the contract is null and void...it was never entered. If all obligors did not sign the contract, it is not a binding contract.

 

[anabanana]

The fact that it is re-rented matters because his actual damages are limited to pro-rata rent for the number of days between when they would have begun paying rent and when the new tenant begins paying rent, correct? Plus maybe re-advertising costs... ?

And John, what about the PM's contention that he can recover from the GF, because she signed. He concedes that he can't recover from my asst., but says the GF is liable for the full month's rent, plus the cost of readvertising.

Come to find out this morning that he had hand-written on the lease that they had not seen the property, with the idea being that this was supposed to be a caveat indicating that if they didn't like it, they could have their money back. He didn't write that part, only that they had not yet seen the property, so to my mind, rather than providing them any extra support, it conveniently strengthens his case, since it makes it look like she was agreeing that she would take the property, without recourse, sight unseen.

This doesn't strike me as such a wild scenario, but I can't reference to any similar cases.

 

[johnd]

And John, what about the PM's contention that he can recover from the GF, because she signed. He concedes that he can't recover from my asst., but says the GF is liable for the full month's rent, plus the cost of readvertising.

As written above, if all parties to the contract have not signed, it is unenforceable...this is a well-established tenet in law. A simple example is that one was relying on the other to contribute payments, and without the other party, cannot satisfy the requirements by himself.

 

[anabanana]

YES!! That's what I was saying!

The lease says: "TENANT as herein used shall include all persons to whom this property is leased."

The TENANT is to include ALL PERSONS to whom the property is LEASED;

So now, the question at issue is whether or not the lease was effected. His argument seems to be that the lease is PARTIALLY PERFECTED, and she already constituted herself as the TENANT by virtue of her signature, even without the other party.

But suppose the girlfriend had bad credit and erratic rental history, but the LL had agreed to rent to the both of them because the fellow had spotless credit and work history. Then the fellow decides to back out and not move in. Is the landlord still obligated to let her have the place because she already signed and constituted herself as the TENANT? I think not.

The only rational conclusion is that the TENANT would be ALL persons they INTENDED as lessees, as evidenced by the inclusion of those names in the typewritten lease document. And since both parties of the intended collective TENANT did not SIGN the lease, and thereby actually constitute the legal entity of the TENANT, the TENANT does not yet exist, hence, and the lease has not been effected.

Man, that's tasty. Not that it gets us anywhere if the property manager doesn't buy it, because HE's got their money, and they now can't move anywhere, which constitutes some kind of a harm, though I don't know how one would quantify it if they wanted to recover more than just the cash he's holding...

I can't believe there's no case law on this...

 

[Who's Liable?]

As written above, if all parties to the contract have not signed, it is unenforceable...this is a well-established tenet in law. A simple example is that one was relying on the other to contribute payments, and without the other party,

Good luck with that, pleas post where this may be found.

cannot satisfy the requirements by himself.

NOT the LL's fault, OR problem. The LL will make MORE money from a person who defaults on a lease.

 

[johnd]

Good luck with that, pleas post where this may be found.

This is a very basic tenet in contract law. Google it and you will find millions of examples. I am surprised that you have not heard of this tenet, or experienced it. And it makes perfect sense if you follow my example...if a contract is arranged for three parties, but only two decide to enter, that contract is not enforceable for the obvious reason that the parties were relying on the non-entering party to satisfy some proviso. If you really can't find some examples, please let me know, and I'll see if I can't post a case or two. I'm really kind of busy now...but the examples you seek can be readily had right on tjhe internet. I would just first ascertain the source. I thought this was understaood by most everyone with some level of experience dealing in contracts.

NOT the LL's fault, OR problem. The LL will make MORE money from a person who defaults on a lease.

That partial quote was part of my example of a nonenforceable contract by way of some party failing to enter. Contract Law 101.

 

[Who's Liable?]

This is a very basic tenet in contract law. Google it and you will find millions of examples. I am surprised that you have not heard of this tenet, or experienced it. And it makes perfect sense if you follow my example...if a contract is arranged for three parties, but only two decide to enter, that contract is not enforceable for the obvious reason that the parties were relying on the non-entering party to satisfy some proviso. If you really can't find some examples, please let me know, and I'll see if I can't post a case or two. I'm really kind of busy now...but the examples you seek can be readily had right on tjhe internet. I would just first ascertain the source. I thought this was understaood by most everyone with some level of experience dealing in contracts.



That partial quote was part of my example of a nonenforceable contract by way of some party failing to enter. Contract Law 101.

*yawn* still waiting for you to post....

 

[HomeGuru]

As a matter of law, the contract is null and void...it was never entered. If all obligors did not sign the contract, it is not a binding contract.

**A: huh? You have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[HomeGuru]

As written above, if all parties to the contract have not signed, it is unenforceable...this is a well-established tenet in law. A simple example is that one was relying on the other to contribute payments, and without the other party, cannot satisfy the requirements by himself.

**A: what a joke.