Two people enter a joint lease on an apartment for 07/01/2005 to 08/14/2006 with a landlord. The individuals orally agree between themselves to pay half the rent which can be evidenced with bank statements.
The individuals extended their lease in December 2005 to 08/14/2007 with the landlord.
One of the individuals got a restraining order on the other, moved out, and stopped paying their half of the rent in August 2006.
Now, the individual left holding the bag for the remaining 11 months of the lease is considering sueing the other for that person's half of the rent for the remaining 11 months plus interest and court fees.
What's the strongest legal argument each person could make to a judge? Who's argument will likely win in small claims court?
2007-03-25 07:27:39 · 10 answers · asked by mukwonago53149 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
There is no question as to IF the renters need to pay the landlord. My question revolves around one renter's liability to the other.
2007-03-25 07:34:15 · update #1
The individual did fight the restraining order, but it was granted anyway. The burden of proof to get a restraining order is very low.
2007-03-25 07:52:28 · update #2
From the facts given, I assume that the two tenants were jointly and severally liable. In other words, they did not sign on to pay 1/2 the rent each. Each of them agreed to pay the rent. If no other specific agreement was made, which is able to be proven in court, there likely is no case to sue the ousted tenant. One possibility is to prove that the tenant did pay 1/2 the rent for quite a long time, which would show intent to keep on paying the 1/2.
2007-03-25 07:50:43 · answer #1 · answered by rose_50613 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Tough question. I saw the problem right from the start ( "We ORALLY agreed") Big mistake there. You should know to have every legal issue documented by writing. As far as the restraining order i would imagine thats a whole other issue and will be the determining factor on who pays the rent. That goes into a whole world of technicalities so i doubt we can help. Glad to help
2007-03-25 07:34:26 · answer #2 · answered by Johnny Blaze 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I know this one......
Okay, you didn't mention why person A got the order of restraint.....founded or unfounded....this makes a difference and did person B fight the order or not, which is basically agreeing to the charges and not objecting to the conditions or reasons for the order......in which case person B can not hold the person A liable for rent because they made living conditions impossible for A to live there.
Having said all that........person B is still left holding the bag and A did a sign a lease to which he may or may not be held accountable......it's called rough justice and it really is hard to tell with out more details. bogus orders of restraint are issued all the time....
person B still, even if they are found correct in court, needs to try to mitigate their damages......ie...get another roommate ASAP to not make damages greater than need be......
If B fought the order of restraint and won, he is home free for a "reasonable" amount of time, if not and the allegations were not disputed......shi* out of luck...........hope it helps.....
2007-03-25 07:41:05 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
If you have a signed lease with both names appearing on the lease and both parties signatures appearing on the document, you have a signed written contract. This is the best evidence that you can present in court. You also have to prove that you are solely paying the rent. This is done by canceled checks and rent receipts. This should prove that the former tenant breached the contract.
2007-03-25 07:38:58 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
regrettably, rentals are written for landlords and not tenants. Absent any provision allowing the tenant to be released from the hire with the aid of ailment, your father continues to be legally to blame for the hire. As a pragmatic count, i might provide be conscious that my father intends to bypass out, and get his issues out of there. There are a number of motives for this. First, as quickly as the townhouse is empty the owner has a duty to objective to hire to somebody else. which potential they should promote the area and hire it to a qualified renter if one shows up. based on the condominium marketplace on your section, your father could in basic terms owe one or 2 months hire instead of something of the hire. 2d, the owner won't choose to sue for the back hire besides. in the journey that your father is ill, any attempt to sue him might in basic terms be not on time. finally a declare will must be filed against his property and it ought to take a year or greater to get any money from the valuables. i might define the above to them and then grant 2 months hire as finished settlement of the hire. in the event that they don't take that then i might in basic terms combat them on each and every situation.
2016-10-19 21:34:50 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The rent should be paid even if you moved out. It's not landlord's fault. You should have renegotiated your agreement with him. Your relationship with the other renter doesn't affect your agreement with the landlord.
2007-03-25 07:44:09 · answer #6 · answered by Alex G 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
what a hassle.
but living well is the best revenge.
just get another roomate and move on with your life.
2007-03-25 07:39:16 · answer #7 · answered by nostradamus02012 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Umm... the renters!
2007-03-25 07:31:37 · answer #8 · answered by Answermaster101 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
you can get books on tenants rights... i would go to your libarary or town hall and see what they have...
2007-03-25 07:36:54 · answer #9 · answered by jessica l 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋
EVERY THING SHOULD BE IN LEGAL WRITING
2007-03-25 07:38:50 · answer #10 · answered by BigCat4LiLMissKittyPurrrrrrrrrrr 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋