
Quoting
adjusterjack
Yes.
With the consent of the landlord.
In other words, the landlord would have had to execute a new written lease with the roommate and released OP (in writing) from his obligations. There would also have had to have been an arrangement for the security deposit. Example: If the security deposit was $1000 that the landlord was holding, the roommate would have had to give the OP $500 or give it to the landlord so that the landlord could refund $500 to the OP. Either way, the landlord holds $1000.
However, with the roommate being a poor credit risk and the OP being a good credit risk, the landlord is wise to keep the OP on the hook until the roommate moves out. By staying on month to month the landlord is protecting himself by keeping the option of terminating the tenancy with a month's notice or sooner if the rent is delinquent.
- - - Updated - - -
I'm not sure I agree.
They both signed the notice but they both didn't leave. Under the doctrine of "joint and several" liability, they are both still there until the landlord writes a new contract with the roommate which obviously isn't happening.
We don't know whether the lease had a "joint and several" clause but, even if it didn't, it could be implied by other terms of the lease.
Perhaps OP can enlighten us as to whether the lease specified "joint and several."