Landlord Accepted New Tenant Without Current Tenant's Consent
My question involves landlord-tenant law in the State of: Oregon.
Hello. My name is James, and I'm here to do some research for my fiance, Holly, who is in the situation I will be describing.
Holly is a college student, who is living in a rented house. She has three roommates, and they all signed SEPARATE rental contracts with the landlord. The contract specifies that only four people will inhabit the house, and those four are listed by name.
Two weeks ago, the landlord allowed one of the current tenant's boyfriends to move into the house and signed a contract to that effect, all without Holly's written consent. The boyfriend does make a monthly payment to the landlord, but less than the four original roomates make.
As I understand from my research, this is a material change to the contract Holly has with the landlord and is not valid without Holly's written consent (Title 10, 90.262.2). Additionally, Holly can give notice that the landlord is in noncompliance with the contract and terminate the contract after 30 days if the landlord does not come back into compliance (Title 10, 90.360.1). However, Holly is at the point where she just wants to move out, due to other issues with the roommates and landlord. So here comes the real question.
Oregon Code says that if Holly breaks the lease, the landlord can only collect rent from Holly until the landlord finds a new tenant (Title 10, 90.410.3). Since the landlord has already accepted a new tenant, can Holly break the lease without penalty?
The landlord originally rented the four-bedroom, single family dwelling with the goal of having four tenants, and if Holly leaves, there will still be four tenants, albeit not the four original tenants.
Re: Landlord Accepted New Tenant Without Current Tenant's Consent
Wait a minute.
How can a landlord have so many leases on a SINGLE FAMILY HOME? A single family home means just that. One lease to one family. You can NOT rent rooms with or without leases to more then one person or one family.
By him signing leases with so many people he broke every zoning law on the books. I do not see how any of these leases can hold up in court.
Re: Landlord Accepted New Tenant Without Current Tenant's Consent
Maybe I stated the situation incorrectly, I don't have any knowledge of law or zoning except from the research I have done for Holly.
The home in question is a four bedroom house. Each roommate signed a separate rental agreement with the landlord, and each roommate has their own room. It's just your standard house, the tenants share the bathrooms, living room, and kitchen. The rental agreement just specifies "the residence located at ______".
What I've described previously is just what I think is the best legal chance for leaving the lease. There have been many other issues with the landlord trying to increase rent, decrease utilities, remove utility services guaranteed in the rental agreement, and change the name on the utilities from herself to the tenants (agreement says tenants pay flat fee to LL for stated utilities). Those are just the LL issues. Half the roommates agree with the LL and want to give her more money.
It's just a terrible situation and I'm trying to get Holly into a new place by Feb 1 if possible. I just don't want to do anything hastily and have her sued for breach of contract. We're trying to get an appointment with a free legal service office this afternoon, but multiple opinions can't hurt.
Thanks for any replies and help.
Re: Landlord Accepted New Tenant Without Current Tenant's Consent
The lease is NOT valid unless the home is zoned for this type of use.
Your first cause of action is to check with the local building department code enforcement division and ask how the home is zoned.
If it is zoned one or two family then you will not have as much of a problem as you think you do. The landlord will be the one with the problems.
Re: Landlord Accepted New Tenant Without Current Tenant's Consent
but in case this is a legal use of the residence; what does Holly's lease state as to number of residents of the building? If this is a legal situation (zoning wise) unless Holly is adversely affected in some manner (required to accept this guy into her room which is given as a private room per her lease or some other such situation), she may have absolutely no recourse and no legal "out" from her lease.
So, what has she lost because this other person has moved in. Are her expenses greater because of this? Anything?
Re: Landlord Accepted New Tenant Without Current Tenant's Consent
Thanks for the responses.
Yesterday we met with a paralegal at a Legal Aid satellite office. We spoke to her about our concerns. Namely, the issue of moving in another tenant, the potential zoning issue, and the question of whether the landlord could continue to collect rent if Holly breaks the lease, considering the LL already accepted a new tenant. The paralegal didn't really say too much, she didn't seem very sure what could happen in this circumstance. The paralegal is running the information by the Housing Lawyer for Legal Aid in the area and is supposed to get back to us on Wednesday.
Yesterday, I spoke to one of the city planners at city hall about the zoning. He said that the house can remain zoned as residential, family-dwelling as long as the landlord is renting to five separate people or less and the home is not subdivided (i.e. multiple kitchens, trying to turn it into a duplex). I haven't found anything about the legality of signing multiple leases on a single residentially zoned home...
And to address jk's question. Holly's contract states, "The premises shall be occupied by no more than 4 adults, namely...(names of the four original roommates here). Any additional or other adult tenants must be approved by landlord in writing." With this clause, specifically referencing the number of people, I still think admitting a fifth tenant is a material change to the contract, which is not allowed under Oregon Code.
As to the adverse effects question, maybe I should elaborate on the situation more. Holly's contract states that she will pay a fixed amount for utilities every month (Utilities include w/s/g, electricity, gas, and internet service). After living in the residence for a month or so, the LL found the actual utilities charges to be more than the sum of the payments by the roommates. The LL tried to raise rent and change the utilities to be in the roommates names so that they would cover the extra costs. We had to fight the LL on that and keep her to the contract.
One of the roommates is the LL's daughter, who acts as LL's representative (collects rent, responsible for general upkeep, etc.). That roommate and another think that Holly is responsible for paying for actual utility usage instead of what is agreed upon in the contact. Thus, they harass her and try to prevent her from using utilities (complain about Holly cooking, taking showers, doing laundry, using her laptop computer, turning off breakers, turn down the water heater temp to unreasonable levels, turn off the heat in the house).
The LL accepted the fifth tenant to cover utility costs. From what we know about his situation, he is only required to pay overages of the utilities. So he is paying much less ($80 last month), and Holly is paying $500 (incl. utility payment), but is entitled to all the same uses of the residence. Actually, more, because t he can take showers, do laundry, cook, watch television, etc. without harassment from the other roommates.
Here's the kicker, the LL signed [B]another[B] lease with this new tenant, presumably with a limit of five occupants. So the LL has 5 different leases floating around, and at least two of them are contradictory. Specifically, Holly's lease says max. occupancy is 4 and this new guy's lease says max. occupancy is 5. So if the LL kicks out the new guy according to our request for her to come back into compliance with the original contract, she will be in default of the other contract and liable.
Re: Landlord Accepted New Tenant Without Current Tenant's Consent
Quote:
Yesterday, I spoke to one of the city planners at city hall about the zoning. He said that the house can remain zoned as residential, family-dwelling as long as the landlord is renting to five separate people or less and the home is not subdivided (i.e. multiple kitchens, trying to turn it into a duplex). I haven't found anything about the legality of signing multiple leases on a single residentially zoned home...
based on what the city planner said, multiple leases would be acceptable. Five seperate people would infer seperate rental agreements.
Quote:
And to address jk's question. Holly's contract states, "The premises shall be occupied by no more than 4 adults, namely...(names of the four original roommates here). Any additional or other adult tenants must be approved by landlord in writing." With this clause, specifically referencing the number of people, I still think admitting a fifth tenant is a material change to the contract, which is not allowed under Oregon Code.
there you go. Her lease says "no more than 4 adults". I suspect you will get the arguement from the LL that this was a limitation on the tenants so they do not get the idea of moving in more folks than the 4 BUT it is also limiting to the LL. He may not like it but it does limit the number of people in the house at 4, regardless where they came from.
Quote:
As to the adverse effects question, maybe I should elaborate on the situation more. Holly's contract states that she will pay a fixed amount for utilities every month (Utilities include w/s/g, electricity, gas, and internet service). After living in the residence for a month or so, the LL found the actual utilities charges to be more than the sum of the payments by the roommates. The LL tried to raise rent and change the utilities to be in the roommates names so that they would cover the extra costs. We had to fight the LL on that and keep her to the contract.
So she pays a fixed amount for utilities so it would not matter how much the utilities go up.
Quote:
One of the roommates is the LL's daughter, who acts as LL's representative (collects rent, responsible for general upkeep, etc.). That roommate and another think that Holly is responsible for paying for actual utility usage instead of what is agreed upon in the contact. Thus, they harass her and try to prevent her from using utilities (complain about Holly cooking, taking showers, doing laundry, using her laptop computer, turning off breakers, turn down the water heater temp to unreasonable levels, turn off the heat in the house).
the heat and water temp would presumably bother all the tenants. The rest of it, turn a deaf ear to them.
Quote:
The LL accepted the fifth tenant to cover utility costs. From what we know about his situation, he is only required to pay overages of the utilities. So he is paying much less ($80 last month), and Holly is paying $500 (incl. utility payment), but is entitled to all the same uses of the residence. Actually, more, because t he can take showers, do laundry, cook, watch television, etc. without harassment from the other roommates.
what the new tenants agreement is irrelevent since his tenancy does not affect Holly's costs. She has no arguement about what the new guy pays or what he is entitled to.
Quote:
Here's the kicker, the LL signed [b]another[b] lease with this new tenant, presumably with a limit of five occupants. So the LL has 5 different leases floating around, and at least two of them are contradictory. Specifically, Holly's lease says max. occupancy is 4 and this new guy's lease says max. occupancy is 5. So if the LL kicks out the new guy according to our request for her to come back into compliance with the original contract, she will be in default of the other contract and liable.
there can be multiple leases with differing terms. The thing he cannot do is what he is which is, have more people in the unit than the limitations in Hollys lease allow. She cannot be responsible for anything concerning the new guys lease. She is not a party to it and has no control over it or responsibility to it. She is bound by her lease and her LL is bound to her by the same lease.
Re: Landlord Accepted New Tenant Without Current Tenant's Consent
Thanks for the taking the time to respond.
It's nice to have people confirm that the LL is breaking the original lease agreement. Depending what the Legal Aid lawyer is willing to do to help, I think Holly will first try asking the LL nicely to let her out of the lease. If the LL isn't willing to, I guess she'll let the LL know that she will be giving notice that the LL must come back into compliance with the lease (4 tenants, not 5) within 30 days or Holly will consider the rental agreement terminated, pursuant to Oregon Law.
Holly still has one more question though, because she would just like to be out of the lease as soon as possible. There is still the question of fair rent. By law, if Holly breaks the lease, she only has to continue paying rent until the LL finds a new tenant, not through the end of the original lease. The LL is not entitled to receive double payment for the same space. So, can Holly break the lease now and not be liable since the LL already has a new tenant?
Thanks for all the help, we both really appreciate it!
Re: Landlord Accepted New Tenant Without Current Tenant's Consent
Quote:
Quoting
jk
there you go. Her lease says "no more than 4 adults". I suspect you will get the arguement from the LL that this was a limitation on the tenants so they do not get the idea of moving in more folks than the 4 BUT it is also limiting to the LL. He may not like it but it does limit the number of people in the house at 4, regardless where they came from.
But the landlord did approve the new tenant in writing. This is the sort of situation where I would want to read the entire lease before trying to interpret the language.
Re: Landlord Accepted New Tenant Without Current Tenant's Consent
I understand your statement. I do agree to an extent and suggest jedwards proceed with caution.
The LL may have agreed but with whom did he agree?
I read that one section that Holly agreed to up to 4 tenants. Regardless if LL agreed with somebody else, I do not see that it matters since LL cannot unilaterally alter Hollys lease. THEY (Holly and LL) must agree to alter her lease.
Since OP is seeking guidance from legal aid to at least help interpret the lease, that would be the best way to proceed.
jedwards: IF the LL is violating Hollys lease, she should demand he stop. If he fails to remedy, she then has an opportunity to void the lease without the concern of finding a tenant to replace her. When you need to be concerned with finding a replacement tenant is when one cannot void the lease. Finding a replacement would be an attempt to mitigate the damages from vacating the premises. If one is able to void a contract, there is no requirement to find a replacement since there would no longer be a valid lease to require any additional payments from the tenant.
Re: Landlord Accepted New Tenant Without Current Tenant's Consent
Yes, we most definitely waiting on advice from Legal Aid as well. I just like to have multiple opinions and I have no idea if the Legal Aid attorney will actually want to help, or just try to brush us off.
The Legal Aid attorney's interpretation and advice will have a huge impact on the course we choose to take. At this point, we are considering trying to negotiate a buy-out of the lease, but there's no buy-out clause in the contract.
Holly is even considering just walking away from the lease and hoping the LL doesn't try to sue. I don't really like this idea, but she is a college student with no assets, there were no co-signers on the lease, and she'd only be leaving 3 months early.
jk - Yeah, I agree with you in that respect. The only problem with that plan of action is that Holly is trying to get out ASAP and Oregon allows the LL 30 days to come back into compliance with the lease after being requested.
Re: Landlord Accepted New Tenant Without Current Tenant's Consent
Quote:
Quoting
jedwards
jk - Yeah, I agree with you in that respect. The only problem with that plan of action is that Holly is trying to get out ASAP and Oregon allows the LL 30 days to come back into compliance with the lease after being requested.
if the LL is allowed 30 days to conform, if she walks before that time, she will be liable for the remainder of the lease. If sued, she may be try to argue the 5th tenant situation but no promises she will prevail.
Re: Landlord Accepted New Tenant Without Current Tenant's Consent
Yeah, I don't particularly like that idea, but it is her choice. If she walks away from the lease, she'll be gambing that the LL won't waste time and money suing a college student with no assets. She spoke to the LL today and the LL will let her buy-out the last 3 months for $1140.
On a separate but related note, at least one of Holly's roommates entered her room without her knowledge or permission. These people are rediculous.