Tenant moving out before end of 30 days in California

[dawn049]

Thanks everyone. I could only find the same information (which Happy Trails bolded) about the tenant having to pay for the full 30 days if THEY gave notice but nothing about the reverse. I thought the same reasoning would apply since the premise behind the 30 day notice is to give the party enough time, with full payment, to find another renter/place to live. But since I couldn't find anything in writing anywhere I thought I would ask.

Happy Trails do you know where this is in writing, or are you perhaps a lawyer that knows for sure?

Thanks so much!

[Happy Trails]

Either one of you could have given a thirty day notice. The notice states you are giving 30 days notice and the tenancy ends 2/7/07.

Rent is owed during the tenancy period. If the tenant didn't want to be liable for the first week in February, then she should have given notice. (This is my interpretation and I believe it to be correct.) I am not in California, you can verify with a local attorney.


http://www.wallis-associates.com/evictions-faq.htm (# 11)

http://www.expertlaw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15842

http://www.expertlaw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1649

Also, if she moved out tomorrow, do you believe you would have to pay her back some of her rent? (Of course not.)

[dawn049]

THANK YOU HAPPY TRAILS!!! That first website is perfect!