Tenants moving out early
My tenants just informed me that they are moving 4 months shy of the end of their rental agreement. The reason for the move is a new job outside of NYC. They say that they are moving “sometime in March” so have not even given the required 30 days notice. They also say that they…
My tenants just informed me that they are moving 4 months shy of the end of their rental agreement. The reason for the move is a new job outside of NYC. They say that they are moving “sometime in March” so have not even given the required 30 days notice. They also say that they cannot pay March’s rent and told me to use their security deposit. This is not acceptable to us as the deposit is meant to cover any damage to the apt. and not rent. I find it infuriating that they think that they can set the terms on how we should deal with this, and strongly feel that they must be held accountable for their obligations. Frankly, they have been total jerks about this and other recent issues. We need advice on how best to proceed. What should we do if we cannot get new tenants before the end of the current rental agreement? We know that we can hold them legally liable for the rent that they owe, but don’t know how to initiate a claim. Thanks for any and all advice.
CookieCutterBrownstone –
A security deposit only has to be held in an interest bearing account if it is for a rent regulated apartment or part of a building with 6 or more units. Otherwise, it is up to the landlord what he/she wants to do with it. The only stipulation is that it can not be combined with any of the owner’s own funds. So unless your apartments fit the above criteria then you probably did not miss out on any interest.
Sloaptoad,
I know I’m coming to this late, but I think the 30 days business is a red herring. You have 30 days. They’re saying they’ll be gone by the end of March. If they leave earlier you aren’t going to pro-rate their rent, are you? No. So you have 30 days and honestly, you have a better deal than 30 days if they’re gone before the month is out, because you have time to clean the place up and show it.
The question is whether the deposit should be used as the last month’s rent or not.
Yesterday we got the pleasure of overhearing our landlord bickering with a departing tenant about the return of his deposit. Landlord wanted proof that all the utility bills were paid up, which is absurd. Later in the day I could hear him mumbling about the condition the apartment had been left in–condition that is pretty hard to gauge since he went in with his paint cans on Wednesday even though the tenants had every right to stay there through Saturday. So he was really griping about the state of things halfway through their move, which is lame.
My note to self in listening to them? Insist that he use our deposit to cover the last month’s rent. Because people find all kinds of ways to drag their feet.
Meanwhile, while first, last and deposit sounds nice, if you’re using an agent keep in mind that that means someone has to come up with a *lot* of cash to move in.
Wonderful! Hope it works out and all goes smoothly.
Thanks for the advice everyone. We knew that there would be lots of differing opinions and we are grateful for the advice. It helps us to think a bit more clearly. We inherited these tenants when we bought the house a couple of years ago. We increased the rent when we moved in, but did not ask for an increased security deposit. This was a mistake and we will certainly be asking for one month plus last month from now on. The security is enough to cover a month’s rent, but we are still not comfortable with using it for the March rent. This is the main sticking point between us and them. We will certainly return their security deposit to them in full and with the interest that it has earned after they move out as long as there is no damage. We have agreed to release them from the lease as long as new tenants are found. It is a nice apartment so we hope that this will be easy to do. We are understanding of their reason to move. We don’t want to force them to stay or to make their lives miserable, but we take their and our obligations to each other very seriously. Hopefully, with the good advice offered here we will be able to come to an amicable resolution.
Keep, there’s a difference between what’s correct and what will cost the landlord the least time, energy and money over the entire event-arc.
Of course the tenants are being unreasonable, and of course the OP has the right to do what you lay out.
But in reality actions, even reasonable actions, tend to create reactions. Being threatened by the landlord can make tenants do hostile things. The fact that the tenant earned the threat is meaningless–the righteousness of the landlord doesn’t make the tenant any less likely to retaliate by putting a bag of cement in the toilet.
Humans are funny that way.
If I were the OP I would consider my lesson about getting first-last-security upfront learned and work to minimize fuss. Not because the tenants have the right to behave badly, but because people tend to continue behaving badly once they’ve started. The potential drama is not worth it.
Lawyer here. There is NO duty to mitigate in New York. Your tenants owe you the remainder of the rent for the lease term. You can keep the apartment empty and recover from them or you can rerent and recover the difference. You can sue them but it might cost just as much to sue as you would recover (unless your lease has an attorneys fees provision).
My suggestion: Tell them that you are willing to allow them to break the lease BUT that they have to pay March rent and that the security deposit will be returned if the apartment is left in good condition. If they are unwilling to agree to such a reasonable proposal (one that acknowledges their need to break the lease with your need to have the rent paid), tell them that you will sue, report them to the credit agencies and obtain a judgment against them (which will go on the credit report) — all of which you are legally entitled to do.
Your tenants are being unreasonable. You don’t have to force the issue by making them stay 4 months, but they should pay you for MArch.
Nice going, bobjohn. OP’s question was not about whether he’d lose money or not. But why stop your list of tenant vandalism and sabotage where you did? Maybe next time you’ll just post a link to the Anarchist’s Cookbook.
Bobjohn raises the most important point here, which is how much pain these people can cause if the conflict escalates. This scenario seems potentially incendiary. If the tenants are under stress about their lives and employment, it’s easy to become a target of their angst. I can easily imagine any landlord attempts to enforce the lease prompting more negligent behavior. Even if they don’t do something destructive, even the burden of leaving some furniture behind could be a real drag to have to deal with because there’s no security deposit left.
If this were my tenants, I would do everything I can to communicate that I am not out to get them and understand their situation. l would try to leverage that empathy, and get them to understand that I am being cool about the lease and using their security deposit to pay rent, and that they should therefore take extra good care when moving out.
And in the future… this is why you collect last month’s rent at the beginning. It’s a big conflict minimizer.
Agree with Bobjohn. The lease is there to protect both parties from irresponsible and dishonest behavior. It shouldn’t be mistaken for an instruction manual, nor a landlord bill of rights.