Lease interpretation help

[mjrocks98.livejournal.com]

Hi All, I am in a tenancy at will and the lease states the following: "The Tenants will occupy the premises as TENANTS AT WILL. The tenancy will terminate when either the Landlord or Tenants gives the other written notice at least one full month in advance."

To me this means 30 days is 30 days. So I informed them that I will be moving out on May 15th (mid-month) & gave them more than 30 days. Now the landlord sends me an email that says: " Note that because the tenancy begins on the first of every month the notice period must be 30 days from the 1st."

Shouldn't that have been spelled out in the lease I signed? I feel like he's trying to slip one in on me. They asked us to move in mid-month & previous tenants moved out mid-month so considering that I know they've been willing to do half a month rent in the past.

Comments

[bombardiette.livejournal.com]

IANAL, but I have been a Tenant at Will before and unless it was otherwise spelled out, 30 days was, indeed, 30 days.

I would go back to the landlord and point out that the agreement only stipulates that 30 days notice must be given, not given from the date the tenancy begins each month. And also point out that you gave him 30+days notice. See what happens.

[ruxxell.livejournal.com]

Didn't say 30 days, it said "one full month", which, IANAL, to me means "from the 1st to the 31st of one of the 12 designated months"

but, i feel your pain buddy, so, i hope you can convince him otherwise.

[zaarwin-devolve.livejournal.com]

Yeah, this seems to be the way things are done around here. It sucks, and the OP's welcome to fight it, but I suspect it'll be a losing battle.

Just curious, OP, do you know if anybody's lined up to move in after you? If so, you could argue that this person would be freeloading off of you (or the landlord would just pocket the extra cash). That's not cool. Just be nice about it. Who knows. Maybe you'll get lucky. Good luck!

[mjrocks98.livejournal.com]

No one is lined up to move in after us because they don't advertise the place because they like to discriminate about who lives here. The land lady is 86 & doesn't want anyone with children living in the building because she lives here as well (at that age I really can't blame her for discriminating against people with kids etc., she wants quiet).
Her son handles all the paperwork & lease stuff (he's a lawyer so I'm probably on the losing end of this). The apartment on the 3rd floor has been empty since Feb. of 2010. I'm guessing they are just upset over the lose of rent but honestly the place isn't up to code & I've been asking for some electrical problems to be fixed for 2 years.
I guess if I'm out half a months rent I'm out half a months rent. I'm going to push cause that's not how I read the lease, Thanks for the opinions & help trying to figure this out!

[bombardiette.livejournal.com]

Understand the landlady not wanting kids, but FTR, it's still a violation of the law to deny anyone housing because they have children.

And you'd think that having a place empty for over a year would be a clear sign of something...

[smoterh.livejournal.com]

Actually it's not a violation of the law. Landlord is allowed not to rent to families with children if any of the conditions are met:
1. 3 or less apartment home, where at least one of the occupants is an elderly or handicapped person
2. Temporary rentals
3. 2 apartment homes, if one is occupied by the landlord (residency first, business second)

[bombardiette.livejournal.com]

Oddly enough, a friend of mine who's a landlord tried to argue that point regarding his own property he resided in, and lost to the AG.

Those same conditions apply to some Section 8 rentals as well, but the landlord often loses that battle in court too.

This state has some of the most convoluted rental laws I've ever encountered.

[bombardiette.livejournal.com]

Another thing to consider is documenting the code violations and, if he takes you to court, offering to counter sue for rent owed while the violations were in effect. It's shitty and underhanded, but with slumlords or crappy landlords, it's also par for the course in the great tenancy game. :(

[clevernonsense.livejournal.com]

I would interpret "1 full month" as in the 1st to the end of the month.

[sparkgrrl658.livejournal.com]

that is how i read it too - if it said "30 days" it'd be different. but 15 days of may or whatever is not a full month, that's part of a month.

[miss-chance.livejournal.com]

What a coincidence, as it happen, IANAL, either. :)

But, practically speaking, they're not going to take you to court for half a month's rent. The cost and hassle aren't worth it. I would be polite and firm. Assert that while you understand that it may not be how they wish it to be interpreted, the text of the agreement is ambiguous, and that you firmly within your rights to interpreting it the **same way** that it was acted upon when you moved in, and suggest that if they wish to have it be acted upon differently for future tenants they change the wording, but this is what you're doing, thankyouverymuchhaveaniceday.

If you are very polite, very gracious, and Very Firm in your reply, my guess would be that they will not waste any more time arguing with you that they should spend looking for a new tenant.

[smoterh.livejournal.com]

Fully agreed with this.
They will not take you to court and the language is fairly ambiguous, as in, when you say something is a month away it can be a month from the 15th.
One thing is that they may decide to keep your last months/rent, security deposit - which you might have to fight in court to get back.

[clevernonsense.livejournal.com]

They could, however, very easily report you to all the credit bureaus as being delinquent.

I would never risk my credit over 2 weeks rent.

[davelew.livejournal.com]

The Massachusetts Consumer Protection Hotline might be able to answer your questions: 888-283-3757 to get to the Attorney General's office consumer hotline.

In general, Massachusetts laws are EXTREMELY tenant friendly. There's also a legal definition of "tenant at will" which, I think, supersedes anything else in your lease. There are also some laws which describe the rights you can't sign away in a lease, and exactly what a landlord can do if you break the lease (they have to try to find a new tenant, i.e. advertise, otherwise you're not liable for rent), etc.

[nathanjw]

Quasi-canonical source of information for this sort of thing: http://www.gis.net/~groucho/tenant.html

Tenancy at will. A tenancy at will in Massachusetts is what, In other states, is called a month-to-month tenancy. A tenancy at will may be in writing, but it is often an oral agreement. With a tenancy at will, either party may terminate the tenancy by giving the other a notice one rental period or 30 days in advance, whichever is longer. A notice to terminate a tenancy at will must be written in a certain way, or it is not effective. It must specify the date on which the tenancy terminates, and it must state that date correctly. A notice to terminate a tenancy at will is commonly called a "30-day notice," but this is a misnomer. It would be clearer if we called it a rent-period notice, since isn't just any 30 days. The notice must terminate the tenancy on a rent day. It is not effective unless it states the date when the tenancy is to terminate and states it correctly.

[leighjen.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I was going to quote something like that from the Mass Housing Consumer Education Center.

"When you are leaving your apartment" (http://www.masshousinginfo.org/resources/download/tenant/tenancy_info_&_advice/when%20you%20leave.doc?item_id=29185)

Here is their text in regards to termination notices:

Remember that the lengths of the notice must be equal to the length of time between your rental payments or 30 days, whichever is longer. Giving a proper notice can save you from paying an extra month’s rent, delaying your move, or possibly losing your security deposit.

[feylike.livejournal.com]

that would seem to conflict with MGL 186 § 12 (http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartII/TitleI/Chapter186/Section12) unless there's an established interpretation of the use of "interval between the days of payment" to mean "specific calendar dates" as opposed to "number of days", which i'll grant is quite possible.

[nathanjw]

This isn't my interpretation of the laws, but what other respected sources (including the Mass. state office office of consumer affairs) claim the interpretation is - we're definitely into "ask a lawyer for a real answer" territory.

That said, the way I read the section you mention is that that defines *notice* to terminate the lease, but does not define the actual termination. So it is true that 30 days notice is sufficient, but that doesn't mean that the lease is terminated at the conclusion of those particular 30 days.

[talonvaki.livejournal.com]

IANAL (but I watch tons of Law & Order)...seems to me if you moved in mid-month, and the previous tenant moved out mid-month, there's a precedent set for "months" to start on the 15th.

[wyckoffzn.livejournal.com]

miss_chance makes a good point, but is that the right thing to do? I would not want miss_chance as a tenant. Tell the landlord you have someone to sublease with kids. A little gamesmenship might work.

[hammercock.livejournal.com]

How is playing games with the landlord morally better than what miss_chance (who, by the way, happens to be a homeowner and landlord herself) suggested?

[balsamicdragon.livejournal.com]

Well, I AM a lawyer, but I can't give you legal advice on LJ :) However, as a general guide, this may be helpful:

http://www.mass.gov/Cago/docs/Consumer/LandlordTenant073007.pdf

[ringrose.livejournal.com]

If you're on good enough terms with the landlady, talk to her about it. Remind her that you moved in mid-month and that the lease is ambiguous, and she should rephrase it as "one full rental period" in the future.

If you are not on good enough terms for that, consider a different approach. If there are electrical problems, I'd guess that you can find more than one light in a public area powered by your electricity. That right there entitles you to sue for a ghastly amount of money if you've been living there a while. Point out to the landlady that it's a lot cheaper to let you out of the tenancy at will a month after your notice.

If you're playing hardball and they took a security deposit or last months rent, there are a bunch of laws regarding how that money should be treated and when the landlord can touch it. See if they've been followed. The laws there are annoying that I don't take security deposit or last months rent from my tenants.


But... we're talking half a month's rent. Right or wrong, if you can afford it look at the benefits of going to the end of the rental period. Getting a good reference when your prospective landlord checks your references might be worth just letting it go. It's a lot easier to move between two apartments with more time. And if, after you move out, there is any excuse for them to keep your security deposit you have a little time to fix it yourself (should you so decide).

Look at both options. Decide which will generate more stress for you; that could be more important than the principle.

[rethcir.livejournal.com]

Just ditch, the laws are so tennant-friendly here that if they DO put any court action on you, it'll take years for them to sort out and the worst that will happen is you will have to pay up at that time, probably after the landlord has spent way more money than the half-month rent on legal fees.

Hmm...

[masswich.livejournal.com]

I think the law is pretty clear that it means one full rent period in advance. That means that the landlord is right. Having said that, its about more than the law here, its about both sides coming to an arrangement. Good luck.