Roommate moved out, will not pay rent any longer...

[DDL416]

FYI
-Lease started October 15, 2014.
-Lease will end September 30, 2015.
-I am on the lease along with my boyfriend and his cousin.
-A written agreement was established.
-We are in Wisconsin.

After having multiple conflicts about cleaning, guests, how bills should be split and other things, I decided to put a Roommate Agreement contract in place. On April 24, 2015 we all signed the contract agreeing to pay $353.00 a month, starting May 1, 2015, to equally cover rent, the electricty bill and cable/internet. On May 1st, 2015 my boyfriend's cousin (who has been causing conflict since the beginning) decides to only pay $325 in rent because he felt he was mistreated for the month of April. His cousin ending up moving half of his things out on his own terms and without notice on April 7. He asked for May's rent back and we told him no.

Currently he is living with some friends and will be paying rent to live with them starting June, so he feels that he should not be held responsible for his share of rent at our apartment (where he is on the lease.) Because he still has the key, he randomly comes over to wash and dry clothes, and today he even showered. I'm not sure about how to handle things from here on out...

The Roommate Agreement contract that he signed says that if anyone moves out 30 days notice should be given, and if the person is unable to find a roommate to replace them they will still have to pay their share of bills so that no financial loss should be left for remaining roommates. I plan on taking him to small claims court for any rent that we have to cover, and he told me to do whatever I had to do.

Should I ask for keys back? Would that be illegal since he his still on the lease and still has property in the apt? I am very uncomfortable with the idea of him being able to have access to my things while I am away, especially because we are not on good terms. My boyfriend and I plan on buying a lock for our bedroom door, but still HE CAN COME AND GO AS HE PLEASE...

Should we tell him to not use our washer and dryer starting June 1st since he won't be paying rent?

I am trying to do everything the right way since I plan on taking him to court.


----ALSO, our leasing officed allowed my boyfriend's cousin to sign something to remove him from the lease without my boyfriends and I consent. He is still on the lease because we all haven't signed, but was that legal on their end? For everything else (signing lease, replacing lost keys, etc) we ALL had to be present... So how was he able to sign someting to remove him off the lease without us being there?

ANY INFO IS HELPFUL...

 

[FarmerJ]

If the property manager really did let him end his end of the lease with out the rest of you agreeing in writing then Id suggest you see if you can get a copy of what he had signed to be let out of the lease since you could make a argument with the PM that since they had no right to change the contract you signed with out your consent that the entire contract is now worthless and you too should be let out of the lease so you can move to somewhere else that you can afford. If the PM tells you NO then counter ` do you think you would look like a giant fool in court trying to explain why the court should enforce a contract that you broke ? If they let him out of the contract then as of what date did the release begin ?

 

[latigo]

Let's see now . . . .

You, boyfriend and boyfriend's cousin are all signatory to a lease of the apartment. The term of the lease and the date it was signed not mentioned. But obviously dated prior to April 24, 2015 when the three of you entered into a separate agreement allocating to each an equal portion of the monthly rent, the electric bill and the cable TV.

Subsequently to the above, again without providing a date, you tell us that cousin walked; is now demanding a refund of $__ representing what he paid for the month of May 2015, which you have refused to honor, and now he claims that he is off the hook for any future contributions because the "leasing office" arbitrarily and singularly removed him from the lease.
_____________

This saga is a bit more complicated than might first strike the eye.

First of all, if true, the "leasing office" pulled a bonehead play! Why?

Because when an obligee releases one or more joint obligors from the debt it acts to likewise release the remaining obligors. That is, unless the remaining obligors reaffirm their original commitment. Which you say did not happen.

And there is a logical reason why this is universally so. Because it has the affect of denying the remaining obligors their legal right to seek contribution from the person released that is otherwise jointly liable for the same debt.

(But let's just assume for sake of explanation that instead of the lease agreement binding all three tenants separately and jointly for the total rent, it allocated 1/3 of the rent to each. In that hypothetical releasing one tenant wouldn't affect the others. The total rent would just be reduced by 1/3. And no rights of contribution existing, nothing occurs to diminish a legal right.)

HOWEVER, here you were thoughtful enough to bind the cousin to a separate contract . . . $353 per month through the term of the lease agreement! And that contract is indeed enforceable, irrespective of the antics between cousin and the leasing office.

Furthermore, you are under no legal obligation to try to mitigate your loss due to his breach. That is, make reasonable efforts to find someone else to step in and assume his role. It did not create a separate landlord/tenant relationship wherein mitigation of loss is a prerequisite. You could if so desired and might be wise, (lawsuits are miserable at best and collection efforts worse) but it wouldn't be a necessary condition to suing cousin on the separate contract.

Also you two might have the option of simply walking away from the lease. That it is, assuming you can get your hands on the document supposedly releasing cousin. But such a threat might provide leverage for negotiating lower rent.

Good luck

 

[I'mTheFather]

FYI

----ALSO, our leasing officed allowed my boyfriend's cousin to sign something to remove him from the lease without my boyfriends and I consent. He is still on the lease because we all haven't signed, but was that legal on their end? For everything else (signing lease, replacing lost keys, etc) we ALL had to be present... So how was he able to sign someting to remove him off the lease without us being there?

ANY INFO IS HELPFUL...

The bolded indicates that the management did not release him from his lease obligation, but simply began the process, conditional on the agreement of the other lessees.

If that's as far as it goes, they've done nothing wrong.

 

[latigo]

The bolded indicates that the management did not release him from his lease obligation, but simply began the process, conditional on the agreement of the other lessees.

If that's as far as it goes, they've done nothing wrong.

Well, we don't know what really occurred, but the OP writes IN PAST TENSE that the "leasing office allowed cousin to be removed from the lease". (You just quoted her.)

Plus, she inquires: (Again using past tense) ". . . how was he able to sign something to remove him off the lease without us being there?"

What the bold type appears to indicate is that the OP only thinks cousin is still on the lease because it wasn't approved by her and boyfriend. Of which she is mistaken as it would not be required in order to effectively remove the cousin from the obligations set forth in the lease. And apparently the cousin believes he is no longer a part of that lease.

One way or another no one did anything "wrong". But if the property owner's authorized agent did in fact formally release the cousin, then it wasn't necessary wrong, but in a legal sense insane! And anyone that has dealt with property managers and the people they hire at rock bottom wages knows they are capable of making insane mistakes.

However, the central issue here is not whether the landlord can still hold cousin to the lease. The core issue is whether the cousin is still responsible to the other two tenants for the $353 per month. And per their supplemental tenants' agreement he continues to be responsible for those payments regardless of what transpired with the leasing office.