What Are Reasonable Grounds for Refusing a Sublet

My question involves landlord-tenant law in the State of: Maryland

My current lease runs through July but I'd like to sublet because I bought a house and am moving in January. The lease says I may sublet with the landlord's written consent, which consent may not be withheld unreasonably.

I've found a young couple to whom I'd like to sublet. The wife has a BS and attends dental school while working part-time as an admin assistant at a law firm. The husband works as a baggage handler at an airport. I don't have info about the wife's income yet, but the husband alone makes 150% of what I do (though admittedly he must work overtime in order to do so, something he says he does regularly and which shows up on the recent pay stubs he provided). The couple has good credit.

The landlord has said he will not consider allowing me to sublet to them, because he only rents to people with college degrees and 'professional' jobs, and the husband doesn’t qualify. So my question: would this be considered 'reasonable' grounds for refusing the sublet arrangement? Doesn't seem like it to me, but I'm no lawyer ;).

If the landlord's stance is unreasonable, what are my options? Can I just walk away and not pay rent anymore, and dare him to take me to court for back rent, at which point I could argue that he refused my reasonable sublet request? Or do I proceed with the sublet and, again, force him to try to prove that his opposition to the arrangement was reasonable?


Thanks in advance for any advice

Are there any standards included in the lease by which the landlord can refuse consent for the sublease, or does it merely say that "consent may not be withheld unreasonably"? If there are standards, what are they?

Quote:

---

Quoting Julian v. Christopher, 320 Md. 1, 575 A.2d 735 (1990)

---

In the instant case, we need not expound at length on what constitutes a reasonable refusal to consent to an assignment or sublease. We should, however, point out that obvious examples of reasonable objections could include the financial irresponsibility or instability of the transferee, or the unsuitability or incompatibility of the intended use of the property by the transferee. We also need not expound at length on what would constitute an unreasonable refusal to consent to an assignment or sublease. If the reasons for withholding consent have nothing to do with the intended transferee or the transferee's use of the property, the motivation may be suspect. Where, as alleged in this case, the refusal to consent was solely for the purpose of securing a rent increase, such refusal would be unreasonable unless the new subtenant would necessitate additional expenditures by, or increased economic risk to, the landlord.

---

Unfortunately you're not going to find authority that addresses what a landlord can and cannot do in the type of detail I expect you desire, but the description you've shared so far seems like an arbitrary standard by the landlord (and one that may disproportionately exclude minorities from consideration as tenants).

From what you have told us so far you would have a potential contract claim against your landlord - e.g., damages from the lost bargain (the amount of your rent that the subtenant would have covered), possible lost profits (if the subtenant agreed to pay more rent than you were paying to your landlord), any damages allowed under the terms of the lease (e.g., if it allows a prevailing party to recover attorney fees), and the like.

Thanks. According to the lease, consent "must not be unreasonably withheld provided that the prospective subtenant satisfies established standards set forth by the landlord for all prospective tenants including, but not limited to, a credit check and rental and employment references."

I could have sworn there was an additional phrase in there about the LL's "established standards" needing to be reasonable as well, but I guess I was wrong about that. I suppose that "not limited to" gives him some leeway--still, though, it seems to be implied that establishing an arbitrary standard for prospective tenants would constitute unreasonable refusal.

I'm thinking about just breaking the lease by moving out and refusing to pay rent any longer. If he sues for unpaid rent I can demonstrate that there was a qualified prospective tenant ready to move in and begin paying rent, and so by choosing not to rent to them he will have failed to fulfill his duty to mitigate. Seems a lot easier than suing over the sublet issue (and I'm guessing with about the same probability of success).