Last week I posted about a train wreck of a tenant to whom I served a notice to quit for repeat violations. Surprisingly he moved out. The unit was clean, but he left a lot of smudges on the bedroom walls and in other rooms we needed to touch up the paint. I told my guy to paint the whole unit. The place looks drab, so I took it off the market for the painting, to replace the laminate floor with a warmer color, and to replace the kitchen backsplash.

He left a big black mark on the fridge, but it was fairly old so I am replacing it. I am not charging him for that. (I am on a big appliance upgrade binge).

It will be ready to rent on 12/8.

The tenant is responsible for rent until it has been re-rented, or March 31st - whichever comes first.

Here's my question: Do you think I should give him credit for the time that the unit is off the market? I can see a case for that, but I also believe that is would be hard to rent it in the condition it is in. Part of it is what he did to the walls, but the place needed to be freshened.

Any opinions?

In order to make him responsible for the rent for the term of the lease, you must show that you attempted to mitigate your damages. You do this by showing that yu actively attempted to rerent the place.

This is hard to describe. When he moved in it looked better than when he moved out. It was clean, but he made it look run down.

Laura, yes, we have to mitigate damages. I think I can argue that I had to take it off the market due to its condition.

NE, I will keep it on the market. Good idea.

I can just change the available date to 12/9.

I just heard back from my lawyer. If a tenant breaches a lease and is told to leave, and does, that is handled the same as a skip - a guy who moves out at midnight in-lease.

if that were not the case, if a tenant moved into a unit and decided he didn't like it, if he got a dog he'd get thrown out with no consequences.

He also said that it's reasonable to take a place off the market for a reasonable amount of time to get it ready.

My courts would agree with Ken, that I told the T to move and he did. Got to know your judge!

Mike45, your post is just so laughably wrong. :)

Tenant Rights and Responsibilities When Signing a Lease in Nevada

A lease obligates both you and your landlord for a set period of time, usually a year. Under a typical lease, a landlord can’t raise the rent or change other terms, until the lease runs out (unless the lease itself provides for a change, such as a rent increase mid-lease). A landlord can’t force you to move out before the lease ends, unless you fail to pay the rent or violate another significant term, such as repeatedly throwing large and noisy parties. In these cases, landlords in Nevada must follow specific procedures to end the tenancy. For example, your landlord must give you five days’ notice to pay the rent or leave (Nevada Rev. Stat. Ann. § 40.251) before filing an eviction lawsuit. If you have caused substantial damage to the property, your landlord may give you an unconditional quit notice, giving you three days to move out. (Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 40.2514).

Tenants are legally bound to pay rent for the full lease term, typically one year, whether or not you continue to live in the rental unit—with some exceptions, as follows...

Lana, so what you're saying in that in your state, a tenant can breach the lease, leave early, but the judge rules against the landlord when he/she tries to recover damages (lost rent)? I really doubt that. Also, no one here is talking about riding out the lease term with an empty unit.

If I had a nickel for every tenant threat of lawsuit I would not need to be a landlord anymore.

take his entire deposit - send the deposit accounting and rent on.

Plenty: when I read his reference to NV law, I believed (and still do) that he did so because Mike45 is from NV and said that he can't charge the T for the entire lease.

"Jeff was pointing out what the laws of Mike45's sate says."

No, Jeff was just quoting some unspecified internet site that purports to set forth NV law, but which does not in fact answer the specific question of whether a Tenant is legally obligated to pay rent for the remainder of the lease term after the Landlord terminates the lease for the Tenant's violations of the lease.

What matters to me is not what some internet pundit asserts, or even what a statute says, but what my judge will do. My judge's position is that I terminated the lease with my Notice to Quit Or Cure (and my subsequent eviction, if I have to go there), and that because I terminated the lease, the Tenant no longer is obligated to pay.

Gotta know YOUR judge. Laws or no laws, the JUDGE decides IF and only IF it goes to court. Not all judges follow the law.

Also, everything is negotiable. Write up what you want and it's good until someone takes it to the judge.

Many just pay.