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.
I think the difference is they paid the bill to live in a space for a certain period of time, and the OP is denying the rights to services that a resident of said space gets in exchange for paying the OP a monthly rate. I don't see how whether or not they "moved out" or "gave the keys back" matters at all in this case.
Reality is, if this ever went to court I would put my money on the OP losing if they continued to deny access to the facility. If the OP does not want to give the tenant access to the facilities that the tenant paid for, perhaps the OP should simply refund the rent.
I agree. I don't understand why the OP won't give the tenant back her money.
Does she no longer have it? Was it spent? They had a verbal agreement and the OP is reneging on what she said.
I agree. I don't understand why the OP won't give the tenant back her money.
Does she no longer have it? Was it spent? They had a verbal agreement and the OP is reneging on what she said.
Either give her back the money or the keys.
The OP doesn't *have* to give her anything. 30-days notice is standard, and once a tenant hands over the keys, even if it's early, that's the end of residency. The tenant has no more rights to the residence.
That said, if I was the landlord, I would send her $20 and tell it wasn't convenient for her to come over, and so laundry at her new place was on me! But the OP doesn't have to do that. She's within her legal rights to just say no.
The OP doesn't *have* to give her anything. 30-days notice is standard, and once a tenant hands over the keys, even if it's early, that's the end of residency. The tenant has no more rights to the residence.
That said, if I was the landlord, I would send her $20 and tell it wasn't convenient for her to come over, and so laundry at her new place was on me! But the OP doesn't have to do that. She's within her legal rights to just say no.
Technically, the landlord owes her the balance of the rent.
If the old tenant feels like taking it to court, she'd win.
Also, the landlord PROMISED her that if she got out before the 30 days was up she'd return the balance of the rent.
She basically LIED to the tenant or reneged, because she doesn't have the money. Either let her do her laundry until the end of the month or give her back the balance of the rent.
You misread the OP's post. She only promised to refund the prorated rent if she was able to get a new tenant in earlier - which is standard. And she did find a new tenant, but the new tenant is not moving in until after the previous tenants 30 days has run out - so there is nothing to refund.
Based on what law? I couldn't find anything that really said either way here, and these kind of issues are decided at the local level so without any information about the jurisdiction this is located in, I don't see how you can so confidently express any kind of opinion like this. Of course she is within the legal right to say no, just as the tenant has a right to sue...
I do know that CA and LA County in particular are extremely tenant friendly in their judgments with landlord/tenant disagreements, so bias in situations such as this would tend to go in favor of the tenant.
You misread the OP's post. She only promised to refund the prorated rent if she was able to get a new tenant in earlier - which is standard. And she did find a new tenant, but the new tenant is not moving in until after the previous tenants 30 days has run out - so there is nothing to refund.
All of that is totally standard, when renting.
I know. I understood all of that. It's not the old tenant's fault that the new tenant decided to wait until the first of the next month to move in.
They had a VERBAL AGREEMENT. I'm sure there was nothing said about the new tenant's move in problems.
If I was the old tenant I was be LIVID. We had a verbal agreement that if I moved out as early as possible you would hand over what's left of the rent. It doesn't nor do I care. I want my money.
I did and now you want to tell me some nonsense about how the new tenant won't be moving in until the first like this is supposed to MEAN something to me.
I would give the landlord one more time to either refund my money or hand me back the keys, so that I could do laundry (which sounds silly, but hey, I'm not the old tenant) OR I'm going to take her to court and deal with it that way.
I'm going to assume the person was paying $400 a month to rent a room or let's just say it was $300. I'm not willing to part with $200 or $150 that easily without a fight.
Sorry, I'm not one of those folks making the big bucks here. I want my $150 - $200.
The landlord basically lied. And NO, $20 will not be sufficient enough to quiet me down.
Of course she is within the legal right to say no, just as the tenant has a right to sue...
Anyone can sue over anything, and it might go her way, but generally, once a tenant turns the unit back over to the landlord, that's the end of their residency.
Quote:
Originally Posted by marilyn220
We had a verbal agreement that if I moved out as early as possible you would hand over what's left of the rent. It doesn't nor do I care. I want my money.
The agreement was to give the old tenant pro-rated rent back, *IF* another tenant moved in, during the 30 days - which did not happen.
Like I said, it's all very standard, and you may not like it or agree with it, but that's the way it goes when renting.
Anyone can sue over anything, and it might go her way, but generally, once a tenant turns the unit back over to the landlord, that's the end of their residency.
The agreement was to give the old tenant pro-rated rent back, *IF* another tenant moved in, during the 30 days - which did not happen.
Like I said, it's all very standard, and you may not like it or agree with it, but that's the way it goes when renting.
The old tenant left in 12 days which leaves 18 days.
$20 isn't gonna cut it or wouldn't for ME.
We will have to come to some sort of "financial" agreement or I'll take my chances in court. It's small claims. $150 - $200 is worth it to me to see what a judge might say.
Technically, the room is still hers. Yeah, I know about the relinquishing of the keys, but I wouldn't let up until I got my money back AS PROMISED.
I strongly believe that small claims court would rule in the old tenant's favor . She paid you for 30 days and therefore she should have FULL access to whatever she had access to prior! I'm sure she returned the keys in 'good faith' that she would be getting some monies back by leaving before the 30 days were up. If your old tenant KNEW that your new tenant would not be moving in until the day after she moved out, it's highly likely that she would have delayed her move. She moved into an apartment and I'm sure that she could have waited 2 more weeks so that she could save some money. But she moved quickly knowing that you had found a new tenant and thought that the person was going to move in sooner. It's obvious that she's very strapped for money, or else she wouldn't be asking you to come by to do her laundry at your place.
You owe her more than $10 or $20 bucks !
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dogluvr4
I rent rooms in my home. My tenant gave me 30 day notice and I charged her only for 30 days from the day the notice was given. I told her I would post an ad and start looking for a new tenant. I advised her that if she moved out before the 30 days was up and if I found a new tenant to move in before the 30 days was up, that she would get a pro-rated refund for the amount of days the new tenant was there, up to the end of the 30 days. I found a new tenant and she gave me a deposit to hold the room, as the old tenant was still occupying the room. The new tenant was not sure what day she actually would be moving in, regardless of when the old tenant vacated. The old tenant vacated about 12 days into her 30 day notice and returned the keys to me. I advised her today that the new tenant will not actually be moving in until 1 day after the old tenant's 30 day notice is up, and as such, she would only be getting her security deposit back and no pro-rated rent, unless the new tenant changes her mind and decides to move in earlier. The old tenant's question is: "Can I get the keys back and come do my laundry so I don't have pay for laundry in my new apartment, since I've paid the rent?"
I strongly believe that small claims court would rule in the old tenant's favor . She paid you for 30 days and therefore she should have FULL access to whatever she had access to prior! I'm sure she returned the keys in 'good faith' that she would be getting some monies back by leaving before the 30 days were up. If your old tenant KNEW that your new tenant would not be moving in until the day after she moved out, it's highly likely that she would have delayed her move. She moved into an apartment and I'm sure that she could have waited 2 more weeks so that she could save some money. But she moved quickly knowing that you had found a new tenant and thought that the person was going to move in sooner. It's obvious that she's very strapped for money, or else she wouldn't be asking you to come by to do her laundry at your place.
You owe her more than $10 or $20 bucks !
Yep this is exactly the type of argument I would see presented. The "good faith" returning of the keys is not necessarily to "surrender" any rights to the property but rather was done in "good faith" to expedite the process should the landlord find a new tenant before the 30 day period. When the landlord informed the old tenant that the landlord was unable to find a new tenant prior to the 30 day notice period, the old tenant asked for the keys to be returned so they could take advantage of the free facilities that exist in the old room. When the landlord denied the tenant access, they can simply sue for the balance between the time of the denial notice and the end of the 30 day period. Pretty much an open and shut case as I see it unless there is some definitive statute that states explicitly that turning in the keys causes the tenant to immediately surrender all access to the facilities between the time the keys are being handed in and the end of the lease. "Generally accepted" principles (which I don't really believe anyway and to me is a pretty weak argument given I think few people 'generally understand' such a thing) would almost certainly be not strong enough in this case given the good faith by the tenant.
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.
Maybe I watch too much Judge Judy but......
. She paid you for 30 days and therefore she should have FULL access to whatever she had access to prior! I'm sure she returned the keys in 'good faith' that she would be getting some monies back by leaving before the 30 days were up. If your old tenant KNEW that your new tenant would not be moving in until the day after she moved out, it's highly likely that she would have delayed her move. She moved into an apartment and I'm sure that she could have waited 2 more weeks so that she could save some money. But she moved quickly knowing that you had found a new tenant and thought that the person was going to move in sooner. It's obvious that she's very strapped for money, or else she wouldn't be asking you to come by to do her laundry at your place. 
!
