Forum
« Good GC Needed Cost to convert SRO to 4 Family »
March 23, 2009
Are we month to month or not?
My husband and I signed a one-year lease in 2007 in a non-rent stabilized 3-unit apartment. After it expired in June of 2008, we agreed to go month to month on the rent with "minimal to no increase." The landlord decided not to raise our rent after all. There was no lease renewal contract. The original lease has no mention of how the lease would renew.
What are our legal rights in this case? Are we still bound by the terms of the original lease? Can he kick us out after at any time? If we wanted to give notice, do we have to give him the 60 days' stated in the original lease? Should we insist on a new lease?
Comments
I believe since you are on a "month to month" the landlord only has to give you 1 months notice.
Even though your original lease has a 60 day out clause, I think just as the landlord can tell you "no" to the next month, you can as well.
I'm not sure of the legal elements, but from limited personal experience "month to month" means you or the landlord decide on a mostly basis to stay. You want to leave? Tell them this is the last month.
If you want to give yourself some security then ask for a new lease.
Posted by: christopher at March 23, 2009 9:05 AM
You definitely have a month to month tenancy which requires only a 30 day notice on either of your parts to terminate it.
Posted by: InsertSnappyNameHere at March 23, 2009 9:08 AM
yep, month-to-month is default. technically 30 days from beginning of next calendar month. landlord gives you notice April 15, you have til May 30. Same principal for you.
Posted by: Johnny at March 23, 2009 9:22 AM
A judge in LL/Tenant can give you up to 6 months to move out on a month to month. Kids in school, illness, whatever, will give the judge the excuse to extend the tenancy.
Posted by: modsquad at March 23, 2009 9:40 AM
A judge in LL/Tenant can give you up to 6 months to move out on a month to month. Kids in school, illness, whatever, will give the judge the excuse to extend the tenancy. At the same rent.
Posted by: modsquad at March 23, 2009 9:42 AM
Thank you. The reason I ask is that I may lose my job and we would not able to afford the rent without my salary. If I become unemployed, we'd like to have the flexibility to move after with 30 days notice into my ILs' house.
On the other hand, if I don't lose my job, I'm uneasy about the uncertainty of being evicted within 30 days while not having the right to leave within 30 days as well.
I spoke to my landlord last week and he is being very evasive, saying we would have to give him 60 days notice, not answering on when he could ask us to leave, and overall just saying we've been great tenants and he would "work with us" -- no need for a lease renewal.
I had always understood that when you go month to month both sides have the right to give 30 days notice of termination of tenancy. He's saying no, all the terms of the original lease remain in effect.
Posted by: mmh33 at March 23, 2009 10:01 AM
Tell him that the original lease,along with its provisions, is null and void unless he would like to have you sign a new lease with the same terms. You both have the right to terminate with 30 days notice. He's likely quaking in his boots about the possibility of having to find a new tenant and wants you to give him as much notice as possible. Sure, it would be nice if you knew 60 days in advance that you needed to leave and made him aware then, but don't stress if you can only provide 30 days, as that is all you are actually required to give him.
Posted by: InsertSnappyNameHere at March 23, 2009 10:11 AM
He can't have it both ways- he doesn't want to renew the lease (and why won't he? Is he selling the building?) but claims the old lease is in effect. He can't- month to month means there is no lease.
Posted by: bxgrl at March 23, 2009 10:44 AM
I would think he just wants as much notice as possible to re-rent the place. Doubt he can or would bother to hold to 60 days.
Posted by: Petebklyn at March 23, 2009 11:48 AM
Thanks again. We're not sure why he doesn't want to issue a new lease. We suspect he wants to have his options open wrt selling the building since he did put it on the market a 4 or 5 years ago. We found this by googling his name so we don't know why he pulled it off the market.
Posted by: mmh33 at March 23, 2009 12:15 PM
Does your original leas not mention what happens when the lease term is up?
Ours states that the at the end of the original lease period the terms of the original lease remain in effect unless a change is made with 60 days written notice. I assumed that (as stated above) if this wasn't specified that it just reverts to month-to-month at with the same terms (and 1 month notice required). I'd be surprised if there wasn't at least a sentence in the lease mentioning it. Isn't it in the NYC boilerplate lease?
Posted by: Heatherie at March 23, 2009 1:31 PM
Unless stated otherwise it's 30 days notice.
Posted by: spnder at March 24, 2009 3:12 PM
my tenants don't have leases and haven't for years. Only the initial. I prefer it that way. If need to get rid of tenant easier when no lease (holdover) and if tenant wants to leave that is fine with me too.
Posted by: Petebklyn at March 24, 2009 4:30 PM
Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.