[ajh1232]

Here's the situation: 2 people signed a lease for one year. After the year was up, one tenant leaves the place, but the other stays and pays month to month. Now the one who stayed isn't keeping up with the rent and the one that left is getting calls from the landlord. Should the tenant that left still be responsible for anything? They left once the lease was up. The landlord knew he left, and there was no further paperwork or anything. The landlord sent both tenants eviction notices. Worried about legal repercussions or rent unpaid and possible damages.

[YAZ]

If the tenant that vacated when the one year lease expired, then THAT tenant isn't liable for anything. As long as they followed the lease agreement (e.g., giving 30 days notice, all rent is paid, etc.).



There could be an issue with the security deposit, but this type of thing should be spelled out in the original lease.

I'm taking a wild guess here that the original lease was for one year, and that it explicitly stated that the lease will continue on a month to month basis after that. If that's the case, then no further paperwork is required.

So, if the person leaves after one year, gives proper notice......they should be removed from the lease. Damage is another story.....

It seems to me that the landlord doesn't have any recourse against the person that moved out.

[ajh1232]

He did leave once the lease was expired. The landlord knew he had left and the rent was paid at that point. He's not worried about the security deposit. They ended up using that to pay when they fell behind once.

The lease was for one year, then turns into a month to month after that. But does it matter that the landlord never set up a new agreement with the tenant that stayed? He just like, extended the original lease. So he is now saying that the tenant that left is still on the lease and is responsible for rent.

[YAZ]

I don't understand why the landlord kept that person on the lease when they knew he was moving out. I've been a landlord and tenant in MI & AZ......as a tenant, I always wrote and signed a letter of my intent to vacate. As a landlord, I required it.

[chiroptera]

Can the landlord even hold someone liable for rent monies after the original lease is up? I don't see any contract or breach thereof after the original year lease; seems to me the tenant that left is in the clear.

This one might come down to what was spelled out in writing.

The lease was for one year, then turns into a month to month after that. But does it matter that the landlord never set up a new agreement with the tenant that stayed? He just like, extended the original lease.

I'm no lawyer but I've been in the past a renter and also a landlady.
Yes IMHO it matters, a lot, that the landlord didn't set up a new agreement. It seems like he has nothing enforceable at this point. I don't see how he would have any action against the person that left after the year was up. He can (just an educated guess) enforce a month-to-month contract with the remaining renter.

[detwahDJ]

Originally Posted by ajh1232

He did leave once the lease was expired. The landlord knew he had left and the rent was paid at that point. He's not worried about the security deposit. They ended up using that to pay when they fell behind once.

The lease was for one year, then turns into a month to month after that. But does it matter that the landlord never set up a new agreement with the tenant that stayed? He just like, extended the original lease. So he is now saying that the tenant that left is still on the lease and is responsible for rent.

Doesn't sound right. After 12 months there is no lease unless the landlord demands a new one - with signatures. That's what happens with an ordinary lease agreement. The current resident can be held responsible, but somebody who vacated after the lease was up??
The calls are coming from the landlord personally rather than a lawyer, so it seems like, with no good case, they are going after whomever they thinks has money - trying to scare or shame them. Could be something personal going on here, or the landlord is desperate.
One place I rented - for about 3 anniversary dates the landlord demanded a new 12-month lease, then stopped the practice - don't really know why and didn't ask. Guess they want to test your trustworthiness for a spell.

[YAZ]

Originally Posted by chiroptera

Can the landlord even hold someone liable for rent monies after the original lease is up? I don't see any contract or breach thereof after the original year lease; seems to me the tenant that left is in the clear.

This one might come down to what was spelled out in writing.



I'm no lawyer but I've been in the past a renter and also a landlady.
Yes IMHO it matters, a lot, that the landlord didn't set up a new agreement. It seems like he has nothing enforceable at this point. I don't see how he would have any action against the person that left after the year was up. He can (just an educated guess) enforce a month-to-month contract with the remaining renter.

Right.

It was month to month, so....the guy that left is only liable for one month's rent at the most. If he gave notice per the lease's requirements.....he's off the hook.

[YAZ]

Originally Posted by detwahDJ

Doesn't sound right. After 12 months there is no lease unless the landlord demands a new one - with signatures. That's what happens with an ordinary lease agreement. The current resident can be held responsible, but somebody who vacated after the lease was up??
The calls are coming from the landlord personally rather than a lawyer, so it seems like, with no good case, they are going after whomever they thinks has money - trying to scare or shame them. Could be something personal going on here, or the landlord is desperate.
One place I rented, for about 3 anniversary dates the landlord demanded a new 12-month lease, then stopped the practice - don't really know why and didn't ask. Guess they want to test your trustworthiness for a spell.

Yeah, the landlord would have a hard time getting a collection agency after him.

Sounds fishy.

[detwahDJ]

Originally Posted by YAZ

Yeah, the landlord would have a hard time getting a collection agency after him.

Sounds fishy.

Yep, the landlord certainly doesn't have the guy's signature. This person may have a harassment case himself, but who knows what's going on there - jeez, they may be "friends" or family for all we know.

[JoulesMSU]

Yeah, the landlord is just desperate and hoping that the person who left (a friend of yours I take it) will be afraid of him filing some kind of claim and just pay.

If he calls again you should tell him to go ahead and try to file a court claim against you with his expired lease. It will likely be the last you hear from him.