Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Anyone out there know anything about joining a tenant union to legally break a lease?
I have a lease, but am also purchasing a house. So naturally I want out of the lease. The lease does allow for a sublease, which we are currently pursuing. Hopefully that works out and it's the end of it. On the other hand, my landlord has a history of being extremely inflexible. I want to have a "Plan B" in place in case his denies qualified subtenants.
I came across this blog post, and was intrigued by item 5, "Invoke the Tenants’ Union". I haven't been able to find any more detailed information on this process. Should I call a tenants' union? And if so, how should I set my expectations?
The impression I get is that they basically bombard the landlord with grievances under the assumption that one or more is true, and thus gets the tenant out of the lease on a technicality or loophole. How effective is this? What are the chances of success? What are the chances of catastrophic backfire?
I'm not sure if it works this way in Illinois, but I know in many states the landlord is required to make a good faith effort to find a new tenant. (Probably a sign in the window or an ad on Craigslist would qualify.) Of course it's in your best interest to help with that. Then you're only legally required to pay rent until the new tenant's lease starts. The landlord has to approve the tenant, of course, but all else equal they would probably have a new person who wants to live there with a fresh lease than a disgruntled person who is trying to get out of it.
I'm not sure if it works this way in Illinois, but I know in many states the landlord is required to make a good faith effort to find a new tenant. (Probably a sign in the window or an ad on Craigslist would qualify.)
Everything I've read says that's the way it is in Illinois & Chicago. However, the tenant is liable for any reasonable advertising costs incurred by the landlord in finding a new tenant. Likewise, the tenant is responsible for the rent until a new tenant is found.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiNaan
Of course it's in your best interest to help with that. Then you're only legally required to pay rent until the new tenant's lease starts. The landlord has to approve the tenant, of course, but all else equal they would probably have a new person who wants to live there with a fresh lease than a disgruntled person who is trying to get out of it.
What you're talking about speaks to me the same as that blog's discussion on subleasing versus rerental. And I agree with you: intuitively, you'd think everyone involved would want to simplify things as much as possible. If I find a suitable subtenant who is willing to sign for the full remainder of my lease, why do I need to stay involved?
But my landlord already said no to re-renting. Sub-leasing is my only option. He refused to answer the question when I asked why; basically, it's his prerogative. This is but one of the many reasons I'm looking at a "Plan B".
Why don't you just be a good person and honor the lease you signed?
That kind of talk is too old-fashioned. Besides, it's not as though the landlord has a mortgage to pay on the rental property, property taxes, insurance, upkeep of the property...
Anyone out there know anything about joining a tenant union to legally break a lease?
I have a lease, but am also purchasing a house. So naturally I want out of the lease. The lease does allow for a sublease, which we are currently pursuing. Hopefully that works out and it's the end of it. On the other hand, my landlord has a history of being extremely inflexible. I want to have a "Plan B" in place in case his denies qualified subtenants.
I came across this blog post, and was intrigued by item 5, "Invoke the Tenants’ Union". I haven't been able to find any more detailed information on this process. Should I call a tenants' union? And if so, how should I set my expectations?
The impression I get is that they basically bombard the landlord with grievances under the assumption that one or more is true, and thus gets the tenant out of the lease on a technicality or loophole. How effective is this? What are the chances of success? What are the chances of catastrophic backfire?
Ugh, no offense, but you're coming off as a bit of a jerk (putting this oh-so-nicely). It's not the landlord's fault that you decided to buy a house in the middle of contractual agreement.
The Tenants' Union has bigger fish to fry than your so-called "problem" landlord. The Union exists b/c there are landlords out there that are real crooks, landlords doing really illegal things like shutting off utilities, locking tenants out, and not standing by their leases. Don't come to them with a bunch of made up problems about your landlord in hopes that something sticks.
Not that it matters b/c I highly doubt joining the Tenants' Union will do squat in your situation. A couple of years back, my roommates and I had a real slumlord. We spoke to the Tenants' Union and other than sending us the complete CRLTO and some paperwork we could fill out (e.g., template letters regarding discounting rent for non repairs), they didn't do any of the things that blog suggests. It wasn't even suggested as an option. Frankly, I wouldn't rely on some random blog like that for help unless there is proof that it works. The only thing suggestions like #5 does is clog up an already clogged legal system and make renting in this city harder than it already is. If your landlord is really and truly a slumlord, then things like not disclosing the bank's name where your deposit is being held is more ammo for the bigger fight at hand. But, and this is 100% the advice we got from both our lawyer and the Chicago committee for better housing (can't remember the exact name off the top of my head), there's zero point in going to court just for these matters alone. Frankly, there are a lot of small time landlords who don't even know these nitty gritty details. Not 100% on their side since of course they should know the ins and outs of their business, but if the landlord is an otherwise decent landlord, are you really going to stick the courts on them for not giving you estimates on the utilities? I had to go to court to deal w/ that jerk LL and let me tell you, the whole ordeal, from calling the Tenants' Union multiple times, to relying info to or landlord, speaking pro-bono lawyers and the lawyer we eventually ended up paying, to going to court on three different occasions nearly five months apart, I personally would jump through a lot of hoops to not have to deal with tat again.
TALK with your landlord and explain the situation. Most landlords will be fine with a sublease so long as an appropriate subleasor is found. If your landlord doesn't want to sublease the apartment, then your SOL. Stick to your lease. Eat your loses and move on. Hell, when I moved to Chicago from Boston, I lost an entire month because I had to break my lease early but still paid rent for that room for the month I was gone. Overlaps happen.
Seriously, do you know how limited these mostly volunteer services are? Are you really going to waste the time of any Tenants' Union with potentially bogus claims just because you didn't time your home purchase correctly? Again, if you have a REAL issue with the landlord, that's one thing, but it seems like you're trying to dig deep for a reason to cause issues.
Of course, I'm not a lawyer. You can try to talk this out w/ a layer, but please, please don't waste the time of the pro-bono lawyers helping tenants with real landlord issues.
Tell your landlord you're moving on whatever date. What's the worst that will happen, you move all your stuff out, stop paying rent and he keeps your security deposit?
Really though, it would be in his best interest to work with you to mutually end this in an agreeable fashion.
Ugh, no offense, but you're coming off as a bit of a jerk (putting this oh-so-nicely). It's not the landlord's fault that you decided to buy a house in the middle of contractual agreement.
How is doing research being a jerk? To reiterate from my original post, The lease does allow for a sublease, which we are currently pursuing. Hopefully that works out and it's the end of it. In fact we've already submitted potential sub-tenants for review. You could argue, and I might even agree, that I'm thinking about being a jerk. But for now I'm just trying to learn.
Is it not possible that my landlord could come on here and post the other side of the story, and you might think he's a jerk? Maybe he's contemplating the equivalent of a tenants' union on the landlord side?
Quote:
Originally Posted by eevee
The Tenants' Union has bigger fish to fry than your so-called "problem" landlord. The Union exists b/c there are landlords out there that are real crooks, landlords doing really illegal things like shutting off utilities, locking tenants out, and not standing by their leases. Don't come to them with a bunch of made up problems about your landlord in hopes that something sticks.
I never said I would come to them with a bunch of made up problems. The impression I got from the blog post I referenced made it sound like the tenants' union themselves comes up with the questionable claims. Furthermore, I do know that they do a consultation before starting the process. Don't you think it's their discretion who they take on? Shouldn't they be the ones to decide whether or not my case is too "small fries" for them to bother with?
Quote:
Originally Posted by eevee
Frankly, I wouldn't rely on some random blog like that for help unless there is proof that it works.
And that's exactly why I'm posting: I'm trying to find out more information.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eevee
TALK with your landlord and explain the situation. Most landlords will be fine with a sublease so long as an appropriate subleasor is found. If your landlord doesn't want to sublease the apartment, then your SOL. Stick to your lease.
Again, the point of my post was to find out more about what's involved with employing a tenant union to legally break a lease. It's strictly information-gathering at this point; it's certainly not something I've committed to. This post is about trying to learn---surely there are other people who want to know more about this process. The focus therefore isn't about my particular rental situation. There's no point in wasting a bunch of space ranting about my landlord grievances.
The CRTLO actually requires the landlord to accept a viable subtenant, per 5-12-120: "The landlord shall accept a reasonable sublease proposed by the tenant without an assessment of additional fees or charges." Of course, "reasonable" is a tricky word. What happens if my landlord blatantly rejects all subtenants just out of spite? Should I sit down and take it? If I believe a subtenant is "reasonable", then I think I owe it to myself to get a judge's opinion. And if he truly is rejecting candidates out of spite, then that's retaliation, which is expressly forbidden by law. If nothing else, that should be grounds for a quick, clean lease nullification.
How is doing research being a jerk? To reiterate from my original post, The lease does allow for a sublease, which we are currently pursuing. Hopefully that works out and it's the end of it. In fact we've already submitted potential sub-tenants for review. You could argue, and I might even agree, that I'm thinking about being a jerk. But for now I'm just trying to learn.
Point taken. Hey internet, so we all can word things a little crassly, as well as judge others a bit trigger-happily. Sorry.
My wife and I owned rentals a couple times, and did get burned by some self-serving tenants before. So I'm coming from that perspective. Alls I'm saying is that your guy probably has expenses which your rent covers, and that's what a lease is all about, an agreement that those expenses will be covered. Looking to weasel out of that agreement just comes off...well you know. But yeh, if you're just researching/brain-storming and weighing options, I mean that's not a mortal sin, no. So good luck with it.
I was once actually in a similar situation as you, was renting a condo that I needed out of mid-lease. Although the owner was not happy about it, she allowed it. I was on really good terms with her, so that helped. But even still, I agreed to be on the hook for rent until the unit was re-rented. I took all the pics and wrote the comments myself for the MLS listing. Also, we showed the unit to perspective renters if she wasn't around, and that's how the unit was eventually rented...and for $150 more per month. So she came out ahead anyways.
My advise to you, approach your landlord from his/her perspective. Offer to show the unit, offer to market the unit on Craigslist, etc. Offer to pay rent until the unit is rented. Take on as much of the leg-work and liability involved as possible. He'll definitely be more inclined to work with you then, methinks.
For what it's worth, I actually am a landlord. That's part of where my frustration comes from: I'd like to think that if I had a tenant in my situation, I'd be a lot more flexible. But the fundamental setup is a little different. My rental property is in another location, and I have a professional property manager working for me. My agent's full-time job is managing properties for people such as myself who want a "hands off" approach to landlording. On 95% of issues that comes up, he just handles them on his own. And on the remaining 5%, he provides advice based on his significant experience. He's never steered me the wrong way, and if anything, I think he's a little biased in favor of the tenants. But as a businessman, I believe there's some real value in keeping the tenants happy.
On the other hand, my landlord also has agents working for him, but they are his friends, and not full-time property managers (they have unrelated day jobs).
I totally agree that talking things out is the right approach: why get lawyers and courts involved if we can resolve the issue on our own? My problem is, I already see signs of the communication breaking down. For example, I didn't just spring the home purchase on my landlord. We've been communicating to them for well over a year that we were looking to buy. At that time, when I first asked about getting out of the lease if we were to buy a house, they basically threatened me with immediate forfeiture of my security deposit, and a litany of other expenses including 2x the agents' fee. Let me re-iterate that this was the response to a simple "what if" question.
I took the time to read up on the CRLTO and realized that most of those threats were bogus. I also realized that our lease---and CRLTO itself---allows for sub-leasing. So when the time came, we renewed. You could argue that we shouldn't have renewed. And I would agree, except that (1) we still hadn't found a house we wanted to buy, (2) there are few/no suitable rentals in our particular neighborhood, and (3) I have a young family, and moving is painful. But I'll also add that the landlord (via his agents) said, "We understand that you're looking to buy, and we'll be happy to work with you, and explore all options, if you do decide to buy."
So now the time has come and I've asked about other options, such as:
Would the landlord be willing to entertain any kind of buyout deal? No. That's all we got, just "no", and no reason why. In my mind I was thinking of making a considerably generous offer, but they are not willing to even discuss it.
If we find a suitable sub-tenant who will sign on for the full term of our lease, can we be let out? I.e. can we re-rent? No. Again, no reason why. We pressed the agents a bit on this, and they basically said it's the landlord's prerogative.
The agents will be out of the country and unreachable for two weeks during this critical need to get a sub-tenant approved time. The landlord said that we must work with the agents (not him) and that candidate screening can only occur while the agents are in town.
I believe that we're ideal tenants. I would all but bet my life that the property is cleaner now than when we moved in. We report any and all issues as soon as they come up. We've not damaged the property in any way. We've consistently paid full rent early. All this consistently over a period of several years. Sure, the lease doesn't say anything explicitly about rewarding past behavior... but is it unreasonable to expect a little flexibility as thanks for years of problem-free profitability for the landlord?
At the end of the day, it could be that the landlord is just fully exercising his rights. And of course that's his option. But if he's going to walk the hard line, then I think it's within my interest to do the same. I feel like his behavior is bordering on retaliation, like he's taking this hard line out of spite. Clearly there is a pattern of non-cooperation; to me it borders on hostility. But it's entirely possible that my frustration is clouding my judgement.
So again, it all comes down to research and understanding. I'm trying to do the right thing. But the experience so far has me concerned. I just want to make sure I'm not being taken advantage of.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
