|
Come on man we aren't going to be your lawyer. Read the OP.
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 03:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 19:15 |
|
|
Also seriously, you think that your lease allows you to terminate without notice? Odds are you are reading it wrong.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 03:33
|
|
|
Here's someone who asked the same question you did. I didn't read all the responses, and have no idea how good they are http://www.city-data.com/forum/renting/1900618-30-day-notice-fix-term-lease.html
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 03:40
|
|
|
Having to give 30 days notice is exactly what the lease says. As in if you intend to split at the end of the lease you still have to warn them. You can't just go "later shitlords" on the 30th and be all good.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 03:54
|
|
|
ShadowHawk posted:I live in California. I have a fixed term lease that lasts until October 31st. No, you are not. The second and fourth sentences are explicit about this. They will ding your credit history and send you to collections.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 03:58
|
|
|
It pretty explicitly requires you to give thirty days notice or a month to month tenancy occurs. You should go in and be nice and see if they'll waive the next month or part of it. They needed to make plans for turning over the unit they own. I don't know California law but in Texas security deposits can be deducted from for unpaid rent.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 04:01
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #91 posted:It pretty explicitly requires you to give thirty days notice or a month to month tenancy occurs. I read "in order to request an initial inspection of the premises" as something that would not happen if I didn't give notice -- ie, I'm not entitled to an inspection. Kalman posted:Also seriously, you think that your lease allows you to terminate without notice? Odds are you are reading it wrong.  euphronius posted:Come on man we aren't going to be your lawyer.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 04:12
|
|
|
Devor posted:Here's someone who asked the same question you did. I didn't read all the responses, and have no idea how good they are Thank you.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 04:31
|
|
|
I read the lease differently. Your lease terminates by the contact language on October 31 only if you give thirty days notice of intent to vacate. Otherwise, you are obligated under the lease to pay November rent. If you pay rent amd they accept, then a month to month is created. If you fail to pay rent and stay, then you're a non paying hold over and they can probably evict. If you leave, then you've abandoned a lease that was not properly terminated. That's how it works with most Texas leases. I often litigate this issue tenant side. I'm sorry if you're about to lose money.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 04:54
|
|
|
Problem is that presumes you have a fixed term lease, which you don't. You have a 12 month lease that converts to a month to month (periodic). So your lease doesn't end at the end of 12 months, the terms just change.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 08:50
|
|
|
ShadowHawk posted:I live in California. I have a fixed term lease that lasts until October 31st. IANAL so I'll be free to give advice. File a bar complaint if you will sir! It says your lease expires 10/31/2014, if your landlord accepts rent after that, then your lease continues on a month to month basis. So your understanding that it would just end is wrong. It says it doesn't unless your landlord opts to kick you out (not taking your rent obviously would mean they're kicking you out) It then says resident is required to given written notice thirty days prior to termination of agreement. That means pretty clearly You have to give a month's written notice when you intend to move out. It then goes on to spell out the terms of month to month, and it again tells you there that you have to give 30 days written notice. They even cite the law in California civil code 1946.1 So you can look that up and see what law they're referencing, It'd probably be helpful but I'd guess if they go so far as to spell out the legal justification for their requiring the notice that you not giving them one means you are in the wrong. You are going to pay them or face the penalties I'd guess.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 13:27
|
|
|
Would an attorney ever speak to opposing counsel in a matter without first being retained and/or given permission by a client? The situation is a couple is going through a divorce, and the husband had a lawyer but the wife did not. She set up a consultation with an attorney and he said something along the lines of "I've spoken to opposing counsel and I think you have a really strong case." She hadn't met him or paid him at that point, just set up the consultation over the phone but she did say that the divorce was getting nasty and she suspected him of hiding assets.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 13:38
|
|
|
Tojai posted:Would an attorney ever speak to opposing counsel in a matter without first being retained and/or given permission by a client? The situation is a couple is going through a divorce, and the husband had a lawyer but the wife did not. She set up a consultation with an attorney and he said something along the lines of "I've spoken to opposing counsel and I think you have a really strong case." She hadn't met him or paid him at that point, just set up the consultation over the phone but she did say that the divorce was getting nasty and she suspected him of hiding assets. Sure, especially if you know opposing counsel and have settled cases with them before. It's also a good way to initiate contact with opposing counsel.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 14:06
|
|
|
patentmagus posted:Sure, especially if you know opposing counsel and have settled cases with them before. It's also a good way to initiate contact with opposing counsel. In this scenario, why would the husband's lawyer say anything at all about the case? Isn't that against the client's interests?
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 14:25
|
|
|
Tojai posted:Would an attorney ever speak to opposing counsel in a matter without first being retained and/or given permission by a client? The situation is a couple is going through a divorce, and the husband had a lawyer but the wife did not. She set up a consultation with an attorney and he said something along the lines of "I've spoken to opposing counsel and I think you have a really strong case." She hadn't met him or paid him at that point, just set up the consultation over the phone but she did say that the divorce was getting nasty and she suspected him of hiding assets. This is common and there is nothing wrong with it. Its smart. baquerd posted:In this scenario, why would the husband's lawyer say anything at all about the case? Isn't that against the client's interests? Professional courtesy, opening the lines of communication, establishing the baseline for his client's case, not being a dick, etc. Unless he is a total gently caress-up, I doubt he said anything that would harm his client. Not every fact about a case is confidential; just the stuff that only the client knows. Everything else is fair game, and is going to come out eventually, so it would just be obstinate and obnoxious as hell to refuse to speak about the case. There's just no reason not to. blarzgh fucked around with this message at 14:37 on Oct 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 14:31
|
|
|
Think of it like this: I call other dude and ask, "So what kind of community property are we talking about?" He says, "gently caress you. Not tellin'." **6 months later** Request for production/interrogatories: "So what kind of community property are we talking about?" [Opposing Counsel provides full accounting of all community property].
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 14:47
|
|
|
Also letting the other side know that the woman is/is about to be represented by counsel and that they shouldn't contact her directly.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 16:09
|
|
|
baquerd posted:In this scenario, why would the husband's lawyer say anything at all about the case? Isn't that against the client's interests? First time litigants always have unreasonable expectations regarding their privacy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 17:36
|
|
|
So wait wife's attorney called husbands before wife ever came in the office for the first time?
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 17:50
|
|
|
euphronius posted:So wait wife's attorney called husbands before wife ever came in the office for the first time? Yeah that actually seemed odd to me but I've had it happen from the other side. "Hey hot dog day, I see you represent wife. Husband is coming in today. Can you tell me what this case is about before I accept representation? I don't want to get into a case where you've got proof that daddy raped the kids." I've never done it before I had a signed retainer though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 18:15
|
|
|
That seemed weird to me too. I'm guessing it's a huge clusterfuck. The prospective new attorney said they would have a really strong case, indicating that the opposing spouse is a whacko to the point their counsel conceded they're hosed ahead of time. It's strange, but I can see it happening for that 1% of worst clients.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 18:25
|
|
|
jassi007 posted:IANAL so I'll be free to give advice. File a bar complaint if you will sir! quote:It says your lease expires 10/31/2014, if your landlord accepts rent after that, then your lease continues on a month to month basis. So your understanding that it would just end is wrong. It says it doesn't unless your landlord opts to kick you out (not taking your rent obviously would mean they're kicking you out) quote:It then says resident is required to given written notice thirty days prior to termination of agreement. That means pretty clearly You have to give a month's written notice when you intend to move out. The part not under the month to month section only says a 30 day notice is required for a premove-out inspection, but I am waiving my right to one. quote:It then goes on to spell out the terms of month to month, and it again tells you there that you have to give 30 days written notice. They even cite the law in California civil code 1946.1 So you can look that up and see what law they're referencing, It'd probably be helpful but I'd guess if they go so far as to spell out the legal justification for their requiring the notice that you not giving them one means you are in the wrong.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 19:33
|
|
|
ShadowHawk posted:In the same way, that month to month conversion clause only kicks in if the resident holds over - I won't do that. It holds over because you didn't give them 30 days notice to the contrary.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 19:37
|
|
|
Your interpretation really doesn't matter unless you're willing to go to court and pay a lawyer to vindicate it. In the meantime they will bodyslam your credit.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 19:40
|
|
|
the milk machine posted:Your interpretation really doesn't matter unless you're willing to go to court and pay a lawyer to vindicate it. Which would undoubtedly be far, far, far more expensive than the one month's rent you owe.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 19:41
|
|
|
the milk machine posted:Your interpretation really doesn't matter unless you're willing to go to court and pay a lawyer to vindicate it. In the meantime they will bodyslam your credit. And you'd probably still lose even in court.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 19:44
|
|
|
the milk machine posted:Your interpretation really doesn't matter unless you're willing to go to court and pay a lawyer to vindicate it. In the meantime they will bodyslam your credit. And your rental history, which can keep you out of future housing. Landlords make threats and are wrong a lot and it sucks. You have several lawyers here telling you you're wrong. I'm a tenant side lawyer telling you you're wrong. Even if you're right, you only win by being nice or suing. Guess which one is way easier?
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 19:47
|
|
|
ShadowHawk posted:In my experience landlords often learn that the best way to get what they want is sheer intimidation and threats, regardless of what the law says or what a judge will rule, especially if there's a property management firm involved. This generally works for exactly the reason you noted. Put yourself in the landlord's place. You need to know in advance of a tenant moving out so that you can re-advertise and re-rent the unit. If you read the lease, it probably discusses that the landlord has the right to enter your apartment for the purposes of showing it to prospective tenants - which would potentially happen after the tenant gives notice. What if instead of silently moving out, the tenant was silently staying on as month-to-month after receiving those notes the landlord left on their door? The landlord can't sign a new lease with a new tenant if there's the possibility that the current tenant is exercising their right to stay on as month-to-month.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 19:58
|
|
|
Dude, you went through all this in August. I'm getting the sneaking suspicion that you're a difficult and possibly unstable tenant who's overly confident in his ability to game the system. Please post the judgment against you from your inevitable eviction/small claims case.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 19:58
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Dude, you went through all this in August. I'm getting the sneaking suspicion that you're a difficult and possibly unstable tenant who's overly confident in his ability to game the system. I never fail to be impressed by the ability of people in this thread to remember serial idiocy. (Or their willingness to consistently click the Just Their Posts button.)
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 20:01
|
|
|
woozle wuzzle posted:That seemed weird to me too. I'm guessing it's a huge clusterfuck. It probably is a clusterfuck. I've been on both sides of the conversation but only when someone was looking to replace counsel who had disengaged. That's a red flag and should be looked into before risking an attorney-client entanglement. blarzgh posted:Please post the judgment against you from your inevitable eviction/small claims case. I doubt the court will have jurisdiction unless he's renting a boat. patentmagus fucked around with this message at 20:11 on Oct 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 20:04
|
|
|
Kalman posted:I never fail to be impressed by the ability of people in this thread to remember serial idiocy. Fuckin' lawyers, man.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 20:04
|
|
|
Kalman posted:I never fail to be impressed by the ability of people in this thread to remember serial idiocy. http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3266659&userid=11127#post433254345 Guess who ignored the thread advice to go speak to the landlord and negotiate an acceptable outcome and instead continued to play the brinksmanship game?
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 20:07
|
|
|
YesssssShadowHawk posted:Yeah I understand this -- last year I renewed the lease after the third or so offer they gave (each one better than the previous). It's a bit of an ongoing game of brinksmanship about who will give first, I'm just curious what happens if I actually do run out the clock. It turns out that after dealing with you last year, they're not looking to put up with your poo poo and don't want to play chicken. The number one thing that management companies are responsible to the owners for doing is having actual leases signed, they hate the uncertainty of month-to-month. Edit: If this was all games and you actually want to stay, they would probably sign a new lease with you, they just want money from a warm body. Devor fucked around with this message at 20:10 on Oct 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 20:08
|
|
|
ShadowHawk posted:
That's not what it's saying, it's saying you have to give 30 days notice in order for them to do the inspection, not if you would like an inspection. Like others have said, it doesn't matter what you think at this point, your choices are pay the money or go to Court and if you do the latter you'll probably lose because your interpretation is wrong. People here have explained to you time and time again that you're wrong and now you're hosed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 20:11
|
|
|
patentmagus posted:I doubt the court will have jurisdiction unless he's renting a boat. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 20:22
|
|
|
Kalman posted:I never fail to be impressed by the ability of people in this thread to remember serial idiocy. Its pretty hard to forget the laptop-face-picture person who seriously asked how to start a non-profit that forced men to take paternity tests. patentmagus posted:I doubt the court will have jurisdiction unless he's renting a boat.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 20:23
|
|
|
If ShadowHawk digs a moat around the house he's renting and floats the house in it, is he still subject to the laws of a landlocked nation?
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 20:30
|
|
|
First of all I'm in the Tampa Florida area. So this morning while driving to work I was sitting at a red light someone with no insurance and a suspended license slammed into the back of me at 70mph. She said she didn't see me because of the glare from the sun. Which even the cops noted was impossible as we were both traveling north at around 815am. The final result is their car, my car, and the car in front of me were all totaled. The cops gave her 3 tickets- reckless driving, driving with a suspended license, and lack of insurance. Now the driver wasn't the owner of the car. I asked the cops about it and they said that the owner has a bunch of cars registered to his name and some of them are pretty nice. It means that even if she has no money he might and he'd be liable. I'm a poor med student spending most of my money flying around interviewing for residency spots. Even with insurance I won't be able to get a car worth a drat. I'll be honest, my neck hurts and I'm pissed as hell this all got dropped on me. I know Florida is a "no fault" state but after talking to that cop it made me hopeful I could get some money out of her or the owner to help me get back on my feet and into a halfway decent car. I've never spoken to a lawyer before and have no idea how to do this. I'm not injured in any major way- cuts and bruises, a big knot, and a sore neck. Nothing major. I didn't really lose any wages but I still feel like I'm entitled to more than the poo poo amount my insurance is gonna give me. Maybe I'm being too justice league about this but I feel like if you gently caress someone up you have the obligation to make it right. If I was to find a lawyer, how would I even go about looking? I see people on billboards all the time but I don't know if they're any good. I don't wanna end up with the "Better Call Saul" of Tampa bay. So lawyers, help a legally dumb doctor figure out what way is up here.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 20:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 19:15 |
|
|
Southern Vulcan posted:First of all I'm in the Tampa Florida area. IANAL, but you should start with your insurance, and see what they offer. Did you have UIM (un-/underinsured motorist) coverage?
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 20:50
|
|
