English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

The home I am renting is very expensive; the landlord is selling it and would like us to move out before our contract ends. She did not tell us she was going to put it on the market when we signed the contract 3 months ago. I have a family of five and we are stressed out from just finishing up our cross-country move. I think the landlord should pay me to move out early, especially because my company is picking up the cost of the house through the end of the contract, but if I move out then I'm on my own. So I think the landlord should settle with me for at least the amount of the rent through the end of the contract, plus some amount of "inconvenience". Legally, I don't HAVE to move out until the contract is up. So is there a precedent for "inconvenience fee" of moving out early to help a landlord sell his/her house?

2007-06-09 22:54:21 · 5 answers · asked by haolefeet_2000 1 in Business & Finance Renting & Real Estate

5 answers

You are correct in that you cannot be put out of the home prior to the end of your lease even if the house is sold.

If you do decide to accomodate your landlord, especially since your company will no longer cover your rent for the balance of the year, the landlord will have to pay you an amount equal to the remaining rent due. They should also pay you enough to cover the cost of locating a new place, all costs of moving, as well as any lost income due to having to take time off from work (or the value of any vacation time you take in order to move.)

If you don't want to be bothered with the calculations, a total of 150% to 200% of the remaining rent due would be reasonable in your case. If the landlord isn't willing to go that far, tell him you'll see him when the lease expires.

There probably isn't a meaningful precedent since this is a relatively unusual situation with your employer's payment of the rent. A couple of years ago I tried to buy out a tenant with 6 month's rent so that I could sell. They refused and then low-balled me on the purchase price when I put it on the market. I had to wait until the lease was up but then they were forced to move. Several years earlier I made a similar offer to another tenant and they jumped on it and were gone in a week -- and left the place spotless.

2007-06-10 00:14:05 · answer #1 · answered by Bostonian In MO 7 · 0 0

In Michigan, and many other states, the laws favor the tenant, not the landlord. You already know you do not have to move out. I probably would not move out personally. In Michigan the new owner would have to honor the lease. If your company will only pay the lease at this particular house, then you need to be paid the full cost of the lease, plus moving expenses, plus some kind of inconvenience factor. All of that will make it expensive for the landlord to sell it now.

As for precedent, I am sure there is one. But there is no standard number or anything like that. You could ask for 3 or three months rent on top of everything else.

2007-06-10 00:10:12 · answer #2 · answered by mefrancis 2 · 1 0

before everything every person can positioned something in a lease and that doesn't make it criminal. There are additionally regulations on your state that govern what a landlord can do and what a tenant can do. you could look those regulations up under assets code on your state's cyber web internet site. . .My state's internet site has a tab for statues and then it incredibly is under that. He can sell the valuables. however the recent landlord would desire to honor the lease you have. And your assets code allow you to recognize the way lots word would desire to settle for for a landlord to head into your premises. it incredibly is often 24 hours. you do no longer ought to enable every person in in much less time and that i might incredibly insist that somebody on your loved ones would desire to be there whilst they pass with the aid of your hourse. i in my view do no longer understand if the owner would desire to demonstrate that he's merchandising the living house yet i think of he ought to in view which you would be disturbed on a time-honored foundation and in case you have been suggested, i'm going to guess you does no longer have rented from him. that would provide you some foundation to pass out yet you could guess he can't pay you to realize this. i might confident take a seat down with an attorney. maximum consultations are unfastened. examine the valuables code. it incredibly is amazingly informative interpreting and would provide you some very sturdy recommendations.

2016-10-07 05:27:14 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

i think the landlord or new owners have to give you what's left on your lease, if it's a year, it would be the remaining amount, if it's a month to month, you're screwed!

2007-06-09 23:05:29 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

In most states the laws favor landlords. Courts are run as though they were eviction mills, and tenants rarely even get a chance to plead their cases. It's best to hire an attorney. That's my advice to you.

2007-06-09 23:19:37 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 3

fedest.com, questions and answers