Rent Liability After Ending a Sublease

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

Sorry for the length of this. Much thanks if you read it!

In May of 2015 a friend (Mike) of mine who knew I was looking for a temporary place to stay told me that they had one room in their 3 bedroom house open. Rent was $500 a month and the lease was up in August of 2015. It was perfect, so I agreed with MY FRIEND to move in. My friend was not on the lease, but instead the 3rd roommate (Jerry) was.

When I got all my stuff moved in I asked Jerry if he would like a check or cash. He preferred a check and told me rent was $550 a month. I brushed it off as me misunderstanding Mike and didn't think anything of it. Just 50 bucks more. So I wrote him a check for (2) months of rent. Why 2 months? I have no idea, I just thought it would be nice to have that taken care of.

Throughout my short time living there, Jerry had several strangers stay at our house as he was participating in "couch surfing". His wife also moved in for the whole month of June without him saying anything about it. I didn't say a word though, because it was his lease - his rules. Plus he was pretty nice, even though I hardly ever saw him. At the end of June I was very surprised to see Jerry moving out. He had asked if Mike and I wanted to sign a 12 month lease a few weeks back, but I had assumed he had meant starting in September? Anyways he moves out and I wonder if he is going to pay for rent or not. I also see that he left a rent envelope on the table, which set off some red flags for me.

I HARDLY ever talked to Jerry. I didn't have his number or contact info. I asked Mike if Jerry was going to pay his portion of rent until the lease is up. He assured me that he was and that he saw no reason why Jerry wouldn't. I told him to make damn sure this was the case, so he reached out to Jerry and left him a voicemail. Two days later, July 1st I think it was, Jerry replied and told Mike that we would be splitting the rent two ways and he would not be paying any of it. Furthermore, Mike tells me that the lease was actually up at the end of June and that July was just an extended month-to-month that Jerry had discussed with the landlord. There was no verbal agreement between Jerry and I about July rent. So I collected my things, told Mike I was going to stay at my family's house until I found a new place - but I wasn't going to pay $275 extra dollars in rent to buy me an extra month at a place I was told I would be paying $500 per month through August. Mike understood, and he also made arrangements to move out. I got all moved out on the morning of July 2nd as fast as I could. I tried to find the Landlord's number online but was unsuccessful. I just wanted him to be aware of the situation. Mike was still in the process of moving out when I left.

Anyways, I leave and don't think much of it. Then today I received an email from Mike telling me Jerry is in Belize but he would be taking me to small claims court when he gets back to get $875 from me. Mike also lets me know that he paid his half of July's rent. Which I thought was really weird. Anyways, I want to know what could come of this situation. Am I in anyway responsible to pay that $875? I could have afforded it, that wasn't the big deal. I just didn't want to pay that much to live in a not so nice 3 bedroom to buy some time when that money could go towards a newer and nicer place.

I appreciate your guys' input! Thanks!

Also- this entire situation could have been avoided with proper communication -- which is something I am just as guilty of avoiding as my roommates.

First let's identify the players.

Even though Mike invited you it was Jerry that you paid rent to so Jerry was your landlord and you were Jerry's tenant. Actually subtenant because Jerry had the lease with the landlord so he was subleasing to you, although on a month to month oral agreement.

Next: You're getting second hand information from Mike that Jerry is in Belize and will sue you when he gets back. You're very naïve if you don't call BS on that. I suggest you tell Mike that Jerry is welcome to talk to you personally when he gets back and prove (not just say) that you owe Jerry money. Meantime, stop talking to Mike about it because you have no idea what Mike's agenda is.

I suspect that Mike might turn out to be the kind of "friend" who will throw you under the bus to cover his own butt.

But before we go on, what was the exact date in May that you moved in paid two months rent to Jerry?

That's important and I don't want to spend the evening on "if this" and "if that."

So when I stop to ask a question, just answer it and we'll move forward.

Quote:

---

Quoting adjusterjack

---

I suspect that Mike might turn out to be the kind of "friend" who will throw you under the bus to cover his own butt.

But before we go on, what was the exact date in May that you moved in paid two months rent to Jerry?

That's important and I don't want to spend the evening on "if this" and "if that."

So when I stop to ask a question, just answer it and we'll move forward.

---

Thanks for the quick response. I paid the two months rent on May 11th, the day I moved in.

I am 100% agreeing with you on this "friend". I think he is throwing me under the bus.

Quote:

---

Quoting Minnesota15

---

Two days later, July 1st I think it was, Jerry replied and told Mike that we would be splitting the rent two ways and he would not be paying any of it. Furthermore, Mike tells me that the lease was actually up at the end of June and that July was just an extended month-to-month that Jerry had discussed with the landlord.

---

You are indicating that you were the month-to-month subtenant of a month-to-month master tenant. In Minnesota, for a periodic tenancy, proper notice for a rent increase is one rental period plus one day. It's important to know the start date of your tenancy, as adjusterjack suggests, to determine when the landlord could impose a valid rent increase -- but no matter how you slice it, no rent increase would be effective immediately.

If the understanding was that the rental period renewed on the 11th of each month, your landlord's July 1 notice of a rent increase would have been effective for the rent payment due on August 11.

Quote:

---

Quoting Minnesota15

---

I got all moved out on the morning of July 2nd as fast as I could. I tried to find the Landlord's number online but was unsuccessful. I just wanted him to be aware of the situation. Mike was still in the process of moving out when I left.

---

Your landlord's informing you of a rent increase is not a valid reason to end the tenancy without notice. You can reject the rent increase and give notice of your own, but you owe your landlord notice of "at least one full rental period before the last day of the tenancy" -- and your notice should be in writing. Your landlord can pursue you for that rent, and can apply your security deposit (if you paid one) to your unpaid rent.

I find some ambiguity in the tenant's guide linked above. The statute provides,

Quote:

---

Quoting Minnesota Statutes, Sec. 504B.135. Terminating Tenancy at Will

---

(a) A tenancy at will may be terminated by either party by giving notice in writing. The time of the notice must be at least as long as the interval between the time rent is due or three months, whichever is less.

(b) If a tenant neglects or refuses to pay rent due on a tenancy at will, the landlord may terminate the tenancy by giving the tenant 14 days notice to quit in writing.

---

The statutory language suggests that the notice may be effective even if the notice period ends during a rental period, as long as sufficient notice is given. However, I see numerous interpretations of that language suggesting that the notice won't be effective until the end of the subsequent full rental period.

Quote:

---

Quoting Mr. Knowitall

---

You are indicating that you were the month-to-month subtenant of a month-to-month master tenant. In Minnesota, for a periodic tenancy, proper notice for a rent increase is one rental period plus one day. It's important to know the start date of your tenancy, as adjusterjack suggests, to determine when the landlord could impose a valid rent increase -- but no matter how you slice it, no rent increase would be effective immediately.

Your landlord's informing you of a rent increase is not a valid reason to end the tenancy without notice. You can reject the rent increase and give notice of your own, but you owe your landlord notice of "at least one full rental period before the last day of the tenancy. This means the day before the last rent payment is due." Your landlord can pursue you for that rent, and can apply your security deposit (if you paid one) to your unpaid rent.

---

I am very ignorant to all of this, clearly. The way you describe me as a subtenant to a month-to-month would indicate that there was AT MINIMUM a verbal agreement of lease terms? Yes? Would only make sense - which doesn't mean its how it is, which is why I ask.

Also, is him opting out of his third of rent and leaving it to my roommate and I considered a rent increase? I suppose in this situation it would qualify.

When you pay rent by the month, that's all the agreement you need to have a month-to-month tenancy.

When the landlord tells you the rent is going up, whatever the reason, that's a rent increase.

Quote:

---

Quoting Mr. Knowitall

---

When you pay rent by the month, that's all the agreement you need to have a month-to-month tenancy.

When the landlord tells you the rent is going up, whatever the reason, that's a rent increase.

---

So....this whole situation is open to interpretation? I'm confused as to how I was liable for July rent still.

Quote:

---

Quoting Minnesota15

---

So....this whole situation is open to interpretation? I'm confused as to how I was liable for July rent still.

---

because you did not give notice by june 1st that you were leaving.

Quote:

---

Quoting Minnesota15

---

Also, is him opting out of his third of rent and leaving it to my roommate and I considered a rent increase? I suppose in this situation it would qualify.

---

Next thing you are going to need to get is a copy of Jerry's lease with the owner of the house.

You need it to learn the following:

1 - The term of the lease. In other words, did it really expire on June 30? Or did it still have some time left on it.

2 - Did it have a non-renewal notice provision or did it just expire without notice.

You'll also want documentary evidence that Jerry paid rent to the owner in July for which he is seeking reimbursement.

You'll want Mike's rent receipt to show that he paid rent for July.

Depending on the terms of Jerry's lease, Jerry might have had to give the owner a month's notice and would be obligated to pay his share of a month's rent anyway.

You might have had to give Jerry a month's notice but since Jerry moved out the question becomes did you have an obligation to Jerry or to the owner of the house?

From the owner's point of view the month's rent was what? $1650? $1750? The owner doesn't care who pays as long as he gets a full month's rent.

I don't see you having any obligation to the owner of the house and Jerry probably is not the kind of person that cares much about documentation so you might just wait and see what happens when he gets back and demand documentary evidence of his lease and any payment to the owner that he made for July.

Since you paid from May 11 to July 10 (let's say) you would only owe Jerry part of your third of July 11 to August 10 depending, of course, on what documents Jerry could come up with to show that he paid anything for that period.

My comments might seem jumbled because all the facts aren't in.

I suggest just ignoring the situation until Jerry gets back and see what kind of documents he can present.

For the future, never live with roommates. Roommate situations always seem to end badly if these legal websites are any indication.

- - - Updated - - -

Quote:

---

Quoting Minnesota15

---

So....this whole situation is open to interpretation? I'm confused as to how I was liable for July rent still.

---

Because of the notice requirement.

However, as I have already noted, whether you owe Jerry depends on whether Jerry paid for July. If he didn't, then you don't owe him anything.

Quote:

---

Quoting Lehk

---

because you did not give notice by june 1st that you were leaving.

---

On the notion that rent would stay the same

Quote:

---

Quoting adjusterjack

---

You might have had to give Jerry a month's notice but since Jerry moved out the question becomes did you have an obligation to Jerry or to the owner of the house?

---

Even if the master tenant moves out, he remains the landlord to his subtenants. The only way for a landlord-tenant relationship to form between the owner and the subtenants is through an express agreement. For that reason I agree with your later point, "I don't see you having any obligation to the owner of the house".

Quote:

---

Quoting adjusterjack

---

Since you paid from May 11 to July 10 (let's say) you would only owe Jerry part of your third of July 11 to August 10 depending, of course, on what documents Jerry could come up with to show that he paid anything for that period.

---

And if Jerry's tenancy ends on July 31, not August 31, your rent obligation to him would also end at that time even though your notice period hadn't technically ended, as he cannot rent premises to you after returning possession to his landlord.

Quote:

---

Quoting adjusterjack

---

However, as I have already noted, whether you owe Jerry depends on whether Jerry paid for July. If he didn't, then you don't owe him anything.

---

A subtenant's liability for rent does not turn on whether or not the master tenant has paid his rent. It's an entirely separate contract.

Quote:

---

Quoting Mr. Knowitall

---

A subtenant's liability for rent does not turn on whether or not the master tenant has paid his rent. It's an entirely separate contract.

---

I thought you might bring that up.

But don't you agree than an aggrieved party cannot profit from the other party's breach?

If Jerry did not pay the owner but collects from OP, he would be profiting from OP's breach.

I know. That's a little "out there." But OP's arrangement was a little "out there" in the first place.

Quote:

---

Quoting adjusterjack

---

I thought you might bring that up.

But don't you agree than an aggrieved party cannot profit from the other party's breach?

If Jerry did not pay the owner but collects from OP, he would be profiting from OP's breach.

I know. That's a little "out there." But OP's arrangement was a little "out there" in the first place.

---

"Out there" is a kind way to put it. Irresponsible and completely ignorant is another way to put it. Thanks for all you help and advice guys!

- - - Updated - - -

Quote:

---

Quoting adjusterjack

---

I thought you might bring that up.

But don't you agree than an aggrieved party cannot profit from the other party's breach?

If Jerry did not pay the owner but collects from OP, he would be profiting from OP's breach.

I know. That's a little "out there." But OP's arrangement was a little "out there" in the first place.

---

I also need to ask one more thing about this. The envelope he left for rent was addressed to the Landlord of the house, not to Jerry. He wanted me to send my half ($825) to the owner of the house without ever making any of this clear to me.

Quote:

---

Quoting adjusterjack

---

But don't you agree than an aggrieved party cannot profit from the other party's breach?

---

It would be a breach if he surrendered the premises to the landlord and told the tenant to move out, without giving proper notice. But the question of whether or not he pays his rent on time is irrelevant to a subtenant's obligations.

Quote:

---

Quoting Mr. Knowitall

---

It would be a breach if he surrendered the premises to the landlord and told the tenant to move out, without giving proper notice. But the question of whether or not he pays his rent on time is irrelevant to a subtenant's obligations.

---

Well, OK, but if Jerry doesn't know that, maybe OP can bluff his way out of paying Jerry any money. That's getting away from the "legal" side of all this but sometimes guerilla warfare pays off, too.

Quote:

---

Quoting adjusterjack

---

Well, OK, but if Jerry doesn't know that, maybe OP can bluff his way out of paying Jerry any money. That's getting away from the "legal" side of all this but sometimes guerilla warfare pays off, too.

---

Maybe I am just not getting it, but have either of you guys given me any sort of answer? Mr. Knowitall basically said I'm probably screwed and you said that I should just ignore it? So I am a little confused still haha

Quote:

---

Quoting Minnesota15

---

Maybe I am just not getting it, but have either of you guys given me any sort of answer? Mr. Knowitall basically said I'm probably screwed and you said that I should just ignore it? So I am a little confused still haha

---

What Mr K and I agree on is that you were legally obligated (one way or another) to give somebody a month's notice that you were terminating your tenancy and you would owe your share of that month's rent.

But Jerry abandoned the rental before you moved out so he's not your landlord anymore. Mike certainly isn't your landlord and you had no agreement with the owner of the property. Depending on the terms of the lease, which we don't know, Jerry might or might not have been obligated to give a month's notice and pay a month's rent.

I'm not saying you won't have to pay anything when the smoke clears I'm just suggesting you ignore it for now and wait until Jerry comes back and see what he does.

When that happens and he starts pushing you for money insist on "documentary evidence" (use those words) that you owe him money. You can remind him that a judge will want the same kind of evidence if he sues you. If he can't come up with any you are free to tell him to pound sand and then stop talking to him.

And none of his Jerry tells Mike, Mike tells you, you tell Mike, Mike tells Jerry business. Put a stop to that as soon as it starts.

If you need any more discussion come back and revive this thread (doesn't matter how long it takes) and don't start any new ones. We want the history all in one place.

Quote:

---

Quoting adjusterjack

---

What Mr K and I agree on is that you were legally obligated (one way or another) to give somebody a month's notice that you were terminating your tenancy and you would owe your share of that month's rent.

But Jerry abandoned the rental before you moved out so he's not your landlord anymore. Mike certainly isn't your landlord and you had no agreement with the owner of the property. Depending on the terms of the lease, which we don't know, Jerry might or might not have been obligated to give a month's notice and pay a month's rent.

I'm not saying you won't have to pay anything when the smoke clears I'm just suggesting you ignore it for now and wait until Jerry comes back and see what he does.

When that happens and he starts pushing you for money insist on "documentary evidence" (use those words) that you owe him money. You can remind him that a judge will want the same kind of evidence if he sues you. If he can't come up with any you are free to tell him to pound sand and then stop talking to him.

And none of his Jerry tells Mike, Mike tells you, you tell Mike, Mike tells Jerry business. Put a stop to that as soon as it starts.

If you need any more discussion come back and revive this thread (doesn't matter how long it takes) and don't start any new ones. We want the history all in one place.

---

Thank you so much. You put that in words an elementary student could understand and for that, I thank you. I will update this thread when the situation develops or resolves. Too many threads on here with only questions and no endings. Would be nice to see how similar situations ended.

Quote:

---

Quoting Minnesota15

---

On the notion that rent would stay the same

---

when did he give you written notice that your rent would change?

Quote:

---

Quoting Lehk

---

when did he give you written notice that your rent would change?

---

He never gave me a written notice it would change. Or a verbal one. He just left and then left an envelope addressed to the landlord.

Quote:

---

Quoting adjusterjack

---

But Jerry abandoned the rental before you moved out so he's not your landlord anymore.

---

Even if Jerry would prefer not to be the landlord any more, the subtenancy remains in effect until it is properly terminated.

Quote:

---

Quoting Minnesota15

---

He never gave me a written notice it would change. Or a verbal one. He just left and then left an envelope addressed to the landlord.

---

I agree with what adjusterjack said, but I am going to add a few points.

You had no obligation to the owner of the house (only Jerry did).

You had an obligation to Jerry...and you definitely covered that obligation for the first 60 days of your sub-tenancy.

However, if it ends up that you had any obligation to Jerry beyond that, it would not be for 875.00 because that was not the agreed upon rent, and Jerry certainly did not give you 30 days notice of a rent increase.

Quote:

---

Quoting llworking

---

I agree with what adjusterjack said, but I am going to add a few points.

You had no obligation to the owner of the house (only Jerry did).

You had an obligation to Jerry...and you definitely covered that obligation for the first 60 days of your sub-tenancy.

However, if it ends up that you had any obligation to Jerry beyond that, it would not be for 875.00 because that was not the agreed upon rent, and Jerry certainly did not give you 30 days notice of a rent increase.

---

Thanks. That makes sense. What would be obligation to Jerry beyond the two months look like?