Frustrated with not getting my last rent check back

[tiggrstaar.livejournal.com]

So I used to live in really bad apartment in porter with really bad roommates but I escaped to davis. The situation is that I haven't got my last rent check back and I moved out two months ago. I'm not necessarily looking for legal advice just general opinions to see what other people would do.

Here's the details:

When I first moved in myself and the other roommates signed a new lease with the landlord. I paid my first and last along with everyone else.

In June I found a new place and my roommates found a new person to replace me. My  former roommates and the new tenant signed a new lease.

The roommates talked to the landlord and said that the new tenant would be the one reimbursing me for my last month's rent. I checked with the landlord and she said she "has always done it that way".

The roommates at that time told me the new tenant would give me a check after moving in on the 1st(of July I assumed).

I had no information about the new lease they signed so it perfectly made sense that it would start on July 1st since that's when I was moving out. Also the roommates told me only "the 1st".

Later I found out the new tenant wasn't moving in until August 1st since the new lease started then. I don't really know how they worked things out to bridge the gap of not having me there for a month but I know I didn't have to pay rent then since they found someone new. My impression is that the new tenant paid for July but maybe couldn't move in immediately.

In any event I'm frustrated with this situation because the roommates say they will send it and the landlord says it's not something she does because she's "always done it this way".

Honestly I don't think I should have to track down the new tenants at a place I don't want to even think about in order to get reimbursed for something that is the landlord's responsibility. Though I'm wondering if the landlord can say this because we all signed a lease at the same time.

Any thoughts?

Comments

I am not a lawyer

[pierceheart.livejournal.com]

But my understanding is that landlords are required to take deposits and place them into interest bearing escrow accounts in the tenant's name, and pay it out within 30 days of tenant leaving the apartment, less any itemized and receipted damages, closing out the interest bearing account.

[clevernonsense.livejournal.com]

Did you completely fulfill the terms of the lease you signed? If so, the landlord has to pay you. If not (like, did you break your lease and someone replaced you?) then I don't really think the landlord has any responsibility.

[filigreepm.livejournal.com]

The landlord cannot do that. Last month's rent should be held separately by the landlord, and in the event it is not applied to the last month (which sounds like the case here), the landlord is to return it to you directly. Whether or not a new tenant moves in has nothing to do with you receiving your money back.

What the landlord is saying without admitting it is that he/she spent your money, and he/she needs/wants the new tenant to cover the cash flow shortfall.

All of this gets even more sticky when it comes to a security deposit.

Your landlord is violating landlord-tenant law. If you want to press the landlord to return your money to you, you can get help from a variety of places. Most important, though, is don't let the landlord convince you otherwise.

Good luck!

-lars

___________________________________
Lars Unhjem, Manager
Filigree Property Management (SM)

Web: http://www.FiligreePM.com

The finest compliment we can receive is a referral from friends and customers. Thank you!

[thespian.livejournal.com]

not quite true, actually. if each of the tenants had their own lease, then this would be true, but the landlord handles the lease collectively. How the rent is split is actually an agreement between the tenants. The landlord has nothing to do with 'shares' - they rent the entire apartment. As such, how much of the deposit is Tom, Dick, or Harry's is *not* relevant to her. As such, when a tenant is leaving a lease situation *early*, they are still responsible for the lease until they see that it gets properly transferred over.

And this person didn't do that. They don't *know* when the new lease began, and is making assumptions about the replacement, like 'it makes sense', instead of actually *knowing*. Since they don't, they are responsible (whether they like it or not) for their agreement with the landlord, and their verbal agreement with their other tenants, until otherwise relieved. It'd be nice if this was the landlord's problem, but it's not. Lease terms are lease terms and it was their responsibility to see to the transfer.

[filigreepm.livejournal.com]

The difference here is that a new lease was created, as opposed to a sub-lease situation.

When a new lease is created, the old lease is terminated, which means each tenant is entitled to receive their last month's rent back, regardless whether it was done *early* or not. A terminated lease means the landlord consented to the change in tenancy.

The full procedure would be to have each tenant on the old lease receive their last month's rent back, and then each tenant on the new lease would provide first and last. In this case, all but one of the tenants on the new lease is from the old lease, so many of these steps were (logically) skipped.

However, legally, the landlord is still responsible for the last month's rent to each person on the old lease within 30 days.

[treacle-well.livejournal.com]

So are you saying that in addition to having paid the last month's rent up front, you also paid rent for the last month on the regular rent day, instead of having the landlord apply the last month's payment you'd already paid when you signed the lease? Because if not, then I don't understand why anybody owes you money. And if so, I'm puzzled why you did it that way.

[tiggrstaar.livejournal.com]

I paid the first and last month's rent when I moved in in June 2009.

I paid regular rent in June 2010.

I moved out in July 2010 with the last month's rent not used.

The roommates and the new tenant signed a new lease.

I guess technically I "broke" the lease but with the landlord's express permission and someone to take over as a new tenant which is how that kind of thing is supposed to happen.

The landlord says they never pay back the last month's rent and the new tenant needs to do that though I agree that's breaking housing laws.

Legally I believe the landlord is supposed to put the last month's rent in an interest bearing account and give you the interest on it each year. This landlord didn't do any part of that.

[pierceheart.livejournal.com]

What was the term of your lease - from when to when?
Which month is "last month"?
Were you residing there during that last month, and did you double pay?

From:http://www.rentlaw.com/dep/massdeposit.htm
You also are entitled to triple damages, court costs, and reasonable attorney’s fees if the landlord fails to pay interest on the last month’s rent within 30 days after termination of tenancy. Subject to the a courts determination.

I am not a lawyer

[unferth.livejournal.com]

Just as an aside - the usual arrangement with last month's rent deposits is that if you paid one when moving in, you don't make an additional payment for your last month's rent. So the landlord may well be right that they don't usually refund it. This doesn't mean they don't need to do so now, but it may be an unusual situation for them too. Especially if you were moving out on short notice.

It is possible that the situation is different if the new tenant is officially a subletter, and your lease is still in effect. But if the landlord is collecting rent directly from the new tenant, that's probably not the case. I have no idea if it's technically possible for a new tenant to take over your interest in the lease, and if so what that would imply for the deposit.

As for the interest-bearing account thing - that's true, although the rules are not as strict for last-month's-rent deposits as they are for security deposits. See MGL Chapter 186 Section 15b (http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/186-15b.htm) for full details, in particular section 2a. Unlike security deposits, it is not explicitly required that the deposit be escrowed, or held in an interest-bearing account. They do have to pay you whatever interest the deposit does earn, but it appears to be legal for them to deposit it in an account that earns none. At least, there's no explicit statement requiring them to do so (compared to paragraph 3a requiring it for security deposits).

Re: I am not a lawyer

[tiggrstaar.livejournal.com]

This place is one of those apartments that has a lot of turnover so most people don't stay a normal year long duration.

In my case I was there over a year but in that time a couple of people left so the landlord had the new roommates and staying ones sign a new lease. I didn't really want to but I wasn't going to be ready to move at that point.

My lease started in June 2009. The roommates and the new tenant signed a new lease which started in August 2010. Though at that time I was told they found someone to replace me so I wouldn't need to pay July rent when I moved out.

As of August 2010 the landlord is collecting rent from the new tenant and the other existing ones. Though we always paid rent together per month.

Previously the landlord had not allowed the roommates to use someone else's last month rent when they skipped out on rent by leaving when no one was home so I doubt the roommates were able to do this and the landlord also didn't mention it to me.

[pjmorgan.livejournal.com]

This has nothing to do with your landlord.

Your roommates screwed you. The landlord has a lease signed by tenants that entitle her/him to cash flows which are joint/several liabilitities of all the tenants that sign. This is assuming they are not doing a rooming house. If one roommate moves out during the lease, that is not the landlord's problem, they are entitled to the uninterrupted stream of rent that the tenant's agreed to.

You left the replacement search to your roommates and they got lazy/mean and found a replacement that wouldn't move in till August 1st, leaving the place vacant for July. You were duped by them.

If the lease on the apartment ended June 30th, you just shouldn't have paid anything on June 1st, as that was the last month and you have no further obligations.

If this was happening in the middle of an apartment lease, you should have ensured the replacement would cover all the obligated rent payments by buying out your last month's rent equity on June 1st (which from the landlord's perspective would simply be June 1st rent when they got that check) and then paying rent starting July 1st when they moved in.

If a new lease started on July 1st and all the new roommates signed on to that, that means legally you paid for a portion of their lease and you should be able to get it back from them. However, given how they've been so far, I think you might have to chalk this one up to experience.

[tiggrstaar.livejournal.com]

I understand how it can seem that way but the landlord also doesn't allow that. We had a situation where one of the roommates decided not to pay rent last year and just took off. The landlord wouldn't let us use her last month's rent for that month so we all had to pay instead.

Therefore the roommates couldn't have told the landlord to use my last month's rent for July 2010. Also I've spoken to the landlord and they didn't mention this when I asked about the last month's rent.

[thetathx1138.livejournal.com]

IANAL, but it sounds like it's time to go to small claims court. You got screwed, and possibly by both parties.

[pjmorgan.livejournal.com]

Please clarify for sure, did the apt lease end on June 30th?

If so you have a chance. You paid a portion of new group of tenants' lease. You might have a chance in that case, to either get it refunded from the landlord (and let him chase them) or to get it back from them, which you paid on their behalf.

It shouldn't have come to this, and the landlord should absolutely not have to get involved in roommate drama, but legally you might be successful.

If you moved in the middle of the lease, then absolutely your landlod is not involved at all and its going to be hard to go after your former roommates as nothing is in writing I presume.

[pjmorgan.livejournal.com]

If you moved out in June, the rental payment in question is June 1st payment. The fact that the new roommate didn't pay on June 1st is triggered by the fact that the place is vacant in July, but the rental payment that you are trying to get back is June 1st.

[tiggrstaar.livejournal.com]

I paid rent in June and moved out July 1st. I'm fairly certain the roommates couldn't and didn't use my last month's rent to pay for July.

I think this mostly comes down to the landlord being lazy about returning rent so she says she just doesn't do it that way. The typical tenants there have a fairly low intelligence so they just take that as how the law works.

[tiggrstaar.livejournal.com]

I just wanted to say thank you to everyone for reading my original(long) posting and giving insightful for feedback. I realize these are opinions and not legal advice but it's definitely a good discussion which will help me decide on what to do next.

[leko.livejournal.com]

So you paid your last months rent (for june 2010) when you signed the lease in 2009, and again on june 1st? Why?

Also, did you give written notice of intent to vacate to the landlord with whatever notice is specified in the lease? If not, as far as the landlord was concerned, you became a tenant at will. If you did, then you should have been free and clear july 1st (if you actually moved out on july 1st and not by midnight on june 30th, that might cause a problem for you too).

The one issue I'm unclear on is what happens if one member of a multi-party lease gives notice, and the others don't. I suspect that if the landlord didn't come to some temporary agreement with the remaining roommates for july, that they essentially forfeited any rental income for july since there was no lease in place until august. If notice wasn't given, then the landlord was entitled to the tenancy-at-will rent for july, and your mistake was paying it, because otherwise the landlord would probably have just gone after the remaining roommates for the balance.