and if a verbal move in agreement is valid, wouldnt a verbal move out agreement be valid?
2007-08-13 07:05:24 · 11 answers · asked by ARTIE LANGE 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law Enforcement & Police
Every state law has it's differences, however it is likely the landlord could win a suit under these circumstances. For example here in Washington the state law requires a tenant to give at least 20 days written notice before the next rent is due. If you lived there for any length of time and paid rent the landlord could easily show that you established tenancy there.
2007-08-13 07:12:35 · answer #1 · answered by davidmi711 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Verbal agreements, implied or otherwise are legal in most states, so if the landlord can establish a rent payment history (ie: rent paid every 30 days or every week, etc) and no notice was given for the time equal to one rent interval, he very well may indeed win a small claims suit in the amount of at least one rent payment, and possibly recoup court costs. However, he must also prove that notice was not given. That could be more difficult, but it is possible.
Addition: Without a written agreement (lease, contract, call it what you like), the agreement implied will be month to month, week to week, or day to day, whatever is established as a rent payment interval.
2007-08-13 07:21:35 · answer #2 · answered by DocoMyster 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Nope, if there was no contract or lease there is no breach.
DOCO – There is no way for the court to enforce a verbal agreement. How can the landlord prove that the agreement was for say 1 year as opposed to 5 months? The landlord is perfectly within his rights to sure, but unless there is a written agreement it is a matter of he said she said and the court will not award damages.
2007-08-13 07:12:46 · answer #3 · answered by Jolan 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
First of all, ANY verbal agreement regarding real estate is invalid on it's face. Therefore, although your verbal move-in agreement was invalid, you reaffirmed it by staying past 30 days, in effect creating a tenancy at will (month to month). This fact does not preclue the stautory requirement for WRITTEN notice to vacate acording to your state statutes (from 10 to 30 days depending on where you were domiciled). So, the landlord is correct. You abandonned the premesis.
2016-05-21 07:43:44 · answer #4 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Verbal agreements do not hold up in court. This is why we have formal contracts. As a landlord myself, I couldn't do squat if one of my tenants moved in and out without a formal contract. My bad.
But of course they can sue you. They just won't win.
2007-08-13 07:13:39 · answer #5 · answered by The emperor has no clothes 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
He can sue you for whatever he wants but that doesn't mean hes going to win. If there was no agreement signed than there can be no case and you're in the clear.
2007-08-13 07:14:37 · answer #6 · answered by Darkfaith21 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Not usually, if you do not have a written contract you are considered to be on a month to month contract, so unless you didn't pay your rent and were evicted, no
2007-08-13 07:13:39 · answer #7 · answered by jean 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Did you, in fact, give verbal, or other notification of vacating the property? If not, what would you expect him to do?
2007-08-13 07:20:38 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
all libs are turds, the one question you answered that is right. NO!
You need a written signed contract in this here US of A. No contract no law suit.
2007-08-13 07:14:17 · answer #9 · answered by chuck b 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
courts don't like to encourage "free rides".
2007-08-13 07:42:29 · answer #10 · answered by OC 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋