What doesn't seem right, is why a tenant needs to be held to the 30 day notice, when they no longer reside in the place of residence any longer. I'm going through a situation where I was forced, due to money constraints, to find a more affordable living arrangement three months after living in a month-to-month lease.
In this area, there are nothing but ghettos, and horribly overpriced rentals, so I took one weekend to casually look around at different places. I found a place, by accident, that I could afford but I had to sign up for it quickly so as not to lose it to others interested in the place. Seven days before the start of the new month begins, I'm now faced with having to give notice. I submitted my intent to move out, noting what date I would vacate the premises. I was moved out by the first, had turned in my keys, and removed all of the belongings.
Why is it, that they can show the apartment, clean it, list it as available, but yet I'm still responsible for paying them 24 days worth of rent? The apartment was left in excellent condition and only an hour or so of spot cleaning was done, and carpet cleaning wasn't even required. I just think the tenant being held to the thiry day notice can be a bit bogus in certain circumstances. So now I won't have my deposit, plus I owe them $240+.
I just think it's a bit ridiculous that one is expected to find a place to move to, and think about it for 30 days to plan it right. Or, on the other hand, be expected to find a place within a few days of the date you plan to physically move out.
Sorry, this is more of venting to people who understand, more than asking a question.