I have a tenant breaking her lease and moving out early. She gave her 30-day notice on Sept. 7.

She thinks this gives her until Oct. 7 to move out. My lease states that 30-day notice is required for early lease break. It also states that rent is for full months only, which means she'd be responsible for October rent as well. She thinks that since she has paid the early termination fee, she should only have to pay rent through Oct. 7.

What does your state law say? It may be that your lease covenant is not binding.

Robin,

We stick to the lease and treat everyone the same.

Another situation where being the manager makes it much easier to hold the res to the rules.

YOU are the one to interpret the lease. Few go to court.

Robin,

We stick to the lease and treat everyone the same.

Another situation where being the manager makes it much easier to hold the res to the rules.

YOU are the one to interpret the lease. Few go to court.

In CA, tenants can give a 30 day notice of moving out ANY day of the month, regardless what day of the month is rent due day.

With me, this would come down to whether or not they were a PITA during their tenancy. If they didn’t have any issues and returned the unit in show condition, then I’d happily take the fee and let them out.

On the flip side, if they were difficult tenants or if they left my place a mess, I’d follow the letter of my state’s law and charge for the full month’s rent and then bill for damages.

Whichever path you choose, use it as a lesson. Modify your lease so that this isn’t ambiguous next time.

In contract law, generally the interpretation of unclear language favors the opposite party from the one who wrote it. So in this case, any vagueness is your responsibility since you wrote the lease.

In the future, I suggest this revamp.

"If tenant wishes to exercise the early termination option, notice must be provided a MINIMUM of 30 days in advance of last day of the month in which the lease will no longer be in effect. For example, a tenant who wishes his/her lease to terminate the last day of September must give notice on or before September 1st. Notice given earlier than September first will still be considered as received on the 1st of the in which the tenant wishes the lease to terminate. Rent is for full months only and is due until the least terminates on the last day of the month, regardless of which day of the month the tenant vacates the premises."

By giving an example, there is no longer any question of interpretation. I've written several of my lease clauses this way.

As Moshe says, you might check the law if you haven't already to ensure this meets the standard of your State LL/T statutes. My guess is it probably does. Most states are not as "sophisticated" (i.e. coercive in limiting to parties exercising freedom to contract) as Cali.

"...last day of the month in which the lease will no longer be in effect."

Gee, I was a bit unclear there too. See what happens when I try to "wing it" vs. copy from my lease?

Anyway, try this...

It's not proper notice-- and lets face it -- she and every other tenant tries to pull the same thing. Can't think of any US state that doesn't require 30 days notice "from the time rent is normally due/paid". We all know it-- and so do they.

So your answer is-- this is not proper notice. Its proper notice for the end of next month.

For me, a thirty day notice can be effective 30 days after it is given. Give me notice on the 23rd, and you can terminate on the 23rd. Prorating is easy, we all have calculators.

If a lease terminates on the last day of the month, I take possession on the first, which is often a busy day for me -- and is a day that I often get notified of non-emergency work needed by Tenants. Because the 1st is so busy, I might not be able to do my move-out photos and punch list for the rehab until the second or third. And then, my crew might be working on repair requests that were handed in with rent money on the first.

I actually prefer to get possession of a now-vacated unit in the middle of the month.

As Sid pointed out, any ambiguities are construed against the draftor - that is a ancient rule of contract interpretation, and is in effect in at least 49 states (who knows about LA?? -- they follow French law instead of British common law).

Just remember that most ELT clauses will probably get shot down in court anyhow -- so you don't want to go there with this. :)

- John...

Mike45 our experience is they give notice and leave the 20th anyway. gives us 10 days on their dime. Our leases end last day of the month at noon.

We do sweeten the pot by advising tenants-- once you pay the full month-- if you return the property ASAP we will make every effort to re-rent and get the prorated rent collected from new tenant-- back to you. THE CARROT!

We've discussed it here quite a bit before -- and Moshe had some good input. Basically, and ELT very often results in "double-dipping" when the place is re-rented. That isn't allowed in many states contrary to popular belief.

They work because they are rarely fought in court. Most of the people here -- as we've just seen in a recent post -- seem to be making up their own ELT clauses without a lawyer. They are often poorly written and too ambiguous.

Also, residential leases are very often looked at differently than just "a contractual agreement" by judges. You can't sign away certain rights no matter what the lease says. It often does not come down to just "Well, they signed it and it says this, so it is valid."

Again, I have an ELT clause too -- and I use it. But I wouldn't want to defend it in court. :)

- John...