Rent Increase

[Mrs. D]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? DC

A friend asked for help with this one, and I didn't know what to tell her, so I thought I'd ask you all.

Friend's LL sent her a request for a rent increase. Her lease looks essentially the same as mine (standard download from the internet) and requires 60 days notice to terminate OR the lease renews under all the same terms for a period of one year. However, DC law only requires 30 days minimum notice for an increase in rent. The request for a rent increase was approximately 45 days before her lease renewal date, so, more than 30 days but less than 60.

The LL is requesting an increase of $250/month, or 25%. This is a bit extreme. However, LL is not subject to rent control as she only owns one rental unit, the basement of her owner-occupied home.

My friend has spoken with the LL and she verbally agreed to an increase of $125/month instead of $250, with another increase to be negotiated if she decides to renew for another year beyond this one.

So, here's what I don't know:

If her LL backs out of this verbal agreement and sends her a lease with the full $250 increase stipulated, what are her options? Her lease requires 60-days notice to terminate and vacate or it renews for another FULL YEAR, and that 60 days has already passed. Can she then give notice that she will not sign the new agreement and will vacate at the end of her current lease term, or is she stuck?

Alternatively (this was her idea, not mine, and she's ready to hire a lawyer to do this as I told her I WOULD NOT help her with this one), could she claim that since LL didn't give her 60 days notice that she will continue paying her current rent and stay for another year, as the lease says it renews with all the same terms if 60 days notice to terminate is not given?

I guess what is tripping me up in answering her questions are the competing laws and clauses. DC law and her lease require 60 days notice to terminate, and her lease stipulates that it renews for another year if that notice is not given. But DC law only requires 30 days notice for an increase in rent. If she chose not to enter the new agreement, which law/clause prevails?

 

[Mrs. D]

I agree that she did the right thing by negotiating an increase that she could afford. The real crux of the issue is if the LL backs out of that agreed increase, and the new lease LL sends reflects the full $250 increase LL originally requested. My friend cannot afford that and would choose to move, but cannot give the 60 days notice of intent to vacate as required by the lease and DC law. (The bit about staying at the current rent was a response made in anger to the fact that her LL is being a little unreasonable because she was "told" by "someone" that she's not charging enough in rent, and I have and will continue to try my best to convince my friend that is NOT a good idea)

I guess the best way to phrase this is: does the request for an increase in rent, and consequently a new lease reflecting that increase in rent, constitute notice of intent not to renew (the original lease) and thereby release the tenant from further agreements if they do not agree to the terms of the new lease?

 

[BL]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? DC

A friend asked for help with this one, and I didn't know what to tell her, so I thought I'd ask you all.

Friend's LL sent her a request for a rent increase. Her lease looks essentially the same as mine (standard download from the internet) and requires 60 days notice to terminate OR the lease renews under all the same terms for a period of one year. However, DC law only requires 30 days minimum notice for an increase in rent. The request for a rent increase was approximately 45 days before her lease renewal date, so, more than 30 days but less than 60.

The LL is requesting an increase of $250/month, or 25%. This is a bit extreme. However, LL is not subject to rent control as she only owns one rental unit, the basement of her owner-occupied home.

My friend has spoken with the LL and she verbally agreed to an increase of $125/month instead of $250, with another increase to be negotiated if she decides to renew for another year beyond this one.

So, here's what I don't know:

If her LL backs out of this verbal agreement and sends her a lease with the full $250 increase stipulated, what are her options? Her lease requires 60-days notice to terminate and vacate or it renews for another FULL YEAR, and that 60 days has already passed. Can she then give notice that she will not sign the new agreement and will vacate at the end of her current lease term, or is she stuck?

Alternatively (this was her idea, not mine, and she's ready to hire a lawyer to do this as I told her I WOULD NOT help her with this one), could she claim that since LL didn't give her 60 days notice that she will continue paying her current rent and stay for another year, as the lease says it renews with all the same terms if 60 days notice to terminate is not given?

I guess what is tripping me up in answering her questions are the competing laws and clauses. DC law and her lease require 60 days notice to terminate, and her lease stipulates that it renews for another year if that notice is not given. But DC law only requires 30 days notice for an increase in rent. If she chose not to enter the new agreement, which law/clause prevails?

Look up the State's differences in long term leases , and month to month tenancy .

Therein may be the differences in 60 per lease , and 30 day rent increase .

I know I'm not in DC , but there's the difference in mine .

Does the lease actually say 30 days notice for increases , or is per law you read ?

 

[Mrs. D]

Well...I called a friend who put me in touch with his law professor, a practicing attorney in DC who regularly handles LL/Tenant cases, here's what he said:

DC law requires 60 days notice to terminate long-term leases.

The clause in the lease requiring 60 days notice of intent to terminate, and stipulating that failure to notify results in an auto-renewal of the lease for an additional year is a limiting clause for both the landlord and the tenant. LL cannot alter the contract after this date without written consent of the tenant. However, tenant also cannot terminate the lease after this deadline, even if a portion of the lease is re-negotiated.

Opening negotiations on a portion of the lease after the 60 day deadline does not open the rest of the lease to negotiation. What this means is that negotiating a change in the rent does not alter the clause about auto-renewal under the same terms.

Therefore, if my friend's landlord does not provide in writing a lease that she agrees with, she cannot get out of the rental. However, she is, in fact, entitled to stay in the unit for one additional year at the rent stated in the current lease.

I guess my friend's angry statement about staying at the current rent will have to be her default position if LL doesn't accept her offer of slightly higher rent, but not what the LL originally asked for. Per the law, she cannot get out of her lease if she doesn't agree with the change, but, by the same token, LL had no right to make that change without the 60 days notice.

He also said that if the lease converted to month-to-month after the original lease period, LL or tenant could have given notice to vacate 60 days from the date of the next rental payment due if they didn't agree with new terms.

It's just unfortunate that my friend attempted to negotiate in good faith, and if those negotiations fail, she's going to end up pissing off the LL because she legally has no other option. She did not provide her 60 days notice to vacate, so she cannot get out of the lease, and she cannot afford the full amount of the rent increase so she has no choice but to kind of screw her LL over. She would have vacated had the rent negotiations failed, but legally, she cannot. I'm guessing if she asked to be let out of her lease (I'll still advise her to ask), LL would hit her with early termination penalties, after this fiasco. Maybe that's something to be said to LLs out there: don't put in a one-year auto-renewal clause, just in case something like this happens. Or, alternately, make sure you conduct negotiations within the scope of the rules you dictate.

 

[Mrs. D]

Does the lease actually say 30 days notice for increases , or is per law you read ?

Just to answer your question, the regulations establishing DC's rent control laws and the exemptions require all LLs to give at least 30 days notice of an increase in rent. As explained to me by the attorney, while this is true, auto-renewing leases have an "out" for the tenant. If they renew month-to-month, and 60 days notice is required to terminate, but only 30 days notice is required for a rent increase, the law allows the tenant to reject the rent increase and put in their 60 days at the same time, and pay the current rent for the 1 additional month. Not exactly straightforward, but that's how it works in practice.

 

[MIRAKALES]

The clock begins when tenant actually receives written notice of lease modifications (or rent increase). Tenant is able to execute their right to terminate the new lease with modifications by providing the notice required in lease agreement... when the notice is delivered. Tenant should notify LL in writing of the verbal agreement to the $125 rent increase (not the $250 rent increase provided in notice), otherwise tenant will exercise their right to terminate the lease agreement in accordance with the sixty (60) day term. Tenant should request written acknowledgment from LL in the form of the new lease agreement at the $125 rent increase.

 

[Mrs. D]

I was out of town for the weekend, but....

As I expected, my friend's LL claimed that she reconsidered her offer after talking with her, and she really wants the full $250 rent increase. I guess what I wasn't saying before is this lady is a royal, um, you know. So anyway, she dropped off the written lease to her with the full $250 increase on it. My friend returned it (certified, RRR, of course, and after making a copy for herself ) to her along with a letter requesting that she either abide by their verbal agreement or allow her to terminate her tenancy at the end of her current lease period (just to be clear, that's October 1, 2008). I guess the LL got it today, b/c my friend just called and said her LL just called her and was telling her she "had her" for another year b/c of the auto-renew clause and she "better not fight the rent increase because she can afford it and any judge will see that and rule against her."

Oh boy...I knew this was gonna get ugly. I told her to call the attorney/professor I spoke with.

 

[applecruncher]

Mrs D - just curious, how much is the monthly rent? (A $125 rent inc sounds steep to me, even for DC area).

 

[Mrs. D]

The monthly rent is currently $1000, the rent with the increase would be $1250. Technically, $1250 is in line with what is typically charged in the area we live in, but her apartment is quite small, not very well maintained, doesn't have that many amenities, and, well, the LL is not a pleasant person to deal with. Over 60% of rentals in DC are rent-controlled, which would limit the increase this year to 5.3% of the current rent. However, owners with less than 4 units aren't subject to rent control, which is why her LL can request to increase it as much as she wants. She had elected to stay when the LL didn't notify her of an increase in rent before the 60-day deadline because, even though the apt. is not a good value, it is a low-ish price. Live and learn.