What are the Legal Limits of Joint and Individually Liability
My question involves landlord-tenant law in the State of: oregon
Two tenants sign a fixed term 1-year lease. The terms of the lease state that unless the landlord receives at least 30 days notice, the lease will automatically renew on a month-to-month basis. If one of the tenants moves out, but neither tenant notifies the landlord, can the moved-out tenant be bound to the month-to-month lease renewals for many years after he moved out?
My understanding was that for a lease renewal to be binding on a tenant, the tenant must be a resident, which means he must be living in the unit, occupying the unit. If the tenant moves out and is no longer occupying the unit and never returns, then he is no longer a resident. And if he is no longer a resident, then he cannot be bound to the rental agreement for years later. Is this correct? If not, why not? What are the legal limits of "jointly and individually liable?"
Thanks.
Re: Oregon: Legal Limits of Joint and Individually Liable
I assume you signed the same lease rather than each having a separate lease with the landlord. In that case, you are responsible even if you NEVER resided there. To end the lease notice must be given and all parties vacate the residence.
Re: Oregon: Legal Limits of Joint and Individually Liable
Is somebody chasing somebody for money?
if the landlord is, then he can go after either or both parties.
If one tenant is chasing the other; while each is still actually bound to the lease and would owe their fair share of the costs, there are arguments to be made that could relieve the moved out tenant has to possibly defend against being held liable to the other party.
Re: Oregon: Legal Limits of Joint and Individually Liable
Quote:
Quoting
TheyMovedOut
Two tenants sign a fixed term 1-year lease. The terms of the lease state that unless the landlord receives at least 30 days notice, the lease will automatically renew on a month-to-month basis. If one of the tenants moves out, but neither tenant notifies the landlord, can the moved-out tenant be bound to the month-to-month lease renewals for many years after he moved out?
So....Tom and Harry signed a lease for an apartment with John Q. Landlord. The initial lease term was one year, and the lease contained a common provision that, upon expiration of the initial term, the tenancy would convert to a month-to-month tenancy on all the same terms. At some point (your post doesn't indicate if it's before or after the expiration of the initial one year term), Harry moves out. However, neither Tom nor Harry bothered to tell Landlord that Harry had moved out. And it is now some unstated number of years later. All correct?
Quote:
Quoting
TheyMovedOut
My understanding was that for a lease renewal to be binding on a tenant, the tenant must be a resident, which means he must be living in the unit, occupying the unit. If the tenant moves out and is no longer occupying the unit and never returns, then he is no longer a resident. And if he is no longer a resident, then he cannot be bound to the rental agreement for years later. Is this correct? If not, why not?
No, it's not correct. In fact, it's absurd. Where did you come by this understanding? Harry is a party to the lease. That he moved out doesn't change that.
Quote:
Quoting
TheyMovedOut
What are the legal limits of "jointly and individually liable?"
Not really sure what this question means.
Let me guess: You're Harry, and Landlord is coming after you for something, and you're trying to find a way to escape the consequences of your failure to notify Landlord that you moved. Right?