Hello,

I am a property manager.

My question is if a tenant is served a 3 day notice to pay rent or quit and they choose to quit, are they still obligated for the payment of future rents if they have 7 months remaining on the lease?

Of course the 7 months of expected rents would stop at the month I re-rent the property.

Thanks,

the total-- then when re-rent actual debt.

In CA, YES.

A few years ago, CA changed its law to make the obligation of a lease a matter of Contract Law, rather than a matter of Real Property Law. Under the new formulation, if a tenant's right to possession is terminated by the lessor because of a breach of the lease, then Contract law provides that the defaulter in the contract is liable for all losses suffered by the non-defaulter because of the default. That includes unpaid rent, rent lost because of the default, and future damages that can be awarded before the loss has actually taken place. It also includes all other amounts necessary to compensate the lessor for all the detriment proximately caused by the lessee's failure to perform his obligations under the contract.

All of these amounts are consistent with the obligations of contract law, but not always consistent with Real Property Law, under the system of Common Law.

Frank, you gave them the choice of paying up or leaving. If they had paid the lease/rental agreement would have continued. By serving notice you terminated the rental if they quit. Since they quit, the lease/rental agreement ended, so they don't owe continuing rent, but they are owed a SD accounting within 21 days. You can sue them in small claims court for additional damages, if you can find & serve them.

Count yourself lucky that your rid of them so easily, without a legal fight.

Not quite true, Coplin, especially in CA. Thats where the change to Contract Law makes a difference.

Under Contract Law, if one side defaults on their obligations, the other side may declare the contract as defaulted and recover all damages because of the default. Under Real Property Law, thats not the case. CA has changed its lease law from Real Property Law to Contract Law.

Under Contract Law, the landlord must notify the defaulting tenant, not only that he must pay rent or quit, but also that, if the rent is not paid within a specified short period, landlord chooses to declare a default of the contract. Its the declaration of a default that allows landlord to evict and collect back rent, not the warning that tenant must quit. Under Real Property Law, that would be the case, but under Contract Law, all the usual principles of Contract Law apply, including recovery to landlord of ALL losses due to the default. By declaring default, YES, the contract is ended, but the landlord remains entitled to recover his losses, all of them, not because the contract continues, but because landlord was promised a bargain that he will not now receive, and must be reimbursed accordingly.

my take is you have already filed for the nonpayment of rent and that case once filed should go all the way to the judgment hearing. So that covers rent to date.

Yes, MYOB, but on what basis are you entitled to claim damages of 850.00 after the lease has ended? Under Real Property Law, you (landlord) terminated the lease. So why does ex-tenant owe you damages?

Its not a question of a "take" but a definite question of law. Under contract law, a party who defaults on a contract is liable for losses, including loss of the bargain created by the contract.

in 35 years none-- not one has quit. when it gets to the 3 days or leave-- they have already dug in. We actually file the 3rd day if there's any inkling they are making a move. We check utilities first for turn off or switch over -- girl checks any facebook posts. we file often and have the right to file the 2nd day if needed. (can file by Efile for 20.00)

" We can only claim amount owed "to date" not future rents on first court filing. "

YES, but we (in CA) can.

CA law (drafted to meet standards of contract law) says landlord is entitled to: the worth at the time of award of the amount by which the unpaid rent for the balance of the term after the time of award exceeds the amount of such rental loss that the lessee proves could be reasonably avoided. Thats future rent, and is a consequence of tenant defaulting on his contract. He and the landlord made a bargain, tenant didn't keep his end of the bargain, landlord declared default, and is entitled to the value of the bargain, subject only to the rule that he must not be unjustly enriched if he could have avoided part of the loss of the bargain.

Mosha -- but why would you claim future? Why not to DATE then when you get property back do BALANCE and DAMAGES?

If you file everything owed-- to date and re rent it has to be adjusted anyway.

Are you saying in CA that if you re-rent and mitigate damages you don't credit to the tenant those mitigate funds? If so man I now like CA (ok not that much)

Listen I'm not arguing with you just asking. hope you don't mind?

MYOB,

You are evidently tied down to what the law says in a certain place, and are having difficulty understanding that laws are written in accordance with certain universal concepts and theories. his is not imply a conflict between a statute written in CA vs a statute written in GA. What you don't understand is the difference between two legal theories: Real Property Law and Contract Law.

Under the Common Law of Real Property, a landlord is required to mitigate damage to THE TENANT on behalf of the tenant. Under Contract Law he is NOT required to do any mitigation on behalf of the tenant, but he is required to take reasonable measures to avoid further loss to himself rather than to bill the tenant. Under Real Property Law, landlord must prove that he acted reasonably to mitigate tenant's damages; under Contract Law, TENANT must prove that part of the landlord's loss could have been avoided by landlord's reasonable action. So, the burden of proof is shifted. The concepts are a little different, they are interpreted in slightly different ways, but the results are similar (but not identical).

Hi Moshe,

You stated: A few years ago, CA changed its law to make the obligation of a lease a matter of Contract Law, rather than a matter of Real Property Law.

May you point me to this law so I can read it.

Thanks,

Hi Moshe,

You stated: A few years ago, CA changed its law to make the obligation of a lease a matter of Contract Law, rather than a matter of Real Property Law.

May you point me to this law so I can read it.

Thanks,