Legal Question in Real Estate Law in California

Broke Lease, Apt. re-rented, Landlord holding 2 deposits!

Broke my lease w/ 6 months to go. I continued to pay, cleaned apt. and moved out. I advertised and showed apt. to prospective tenants to assist in finding new renter. Landlord accepted a new renters deposit today (12/9/02). New renter doesn't want to move in until 1/15/03. Landlord says I have to pay rent until they move in, even though they accepted a deposit and can't rent it to anyone else who may want to move in before that date. Is this legal? They have my deposit, my rent and the new tenants deposit all on the same apartment. The landlord had told me previously that once a deposit was accepted the apartment was officially ''rented''. I thought I was off the hook since they accepted the deposit...is that not the case?


Asked on 12/09/02, 7:54 pm

2 Answers from Attorneys

Bryan Whipple Bryan R. R. Whipple, Attorney at Law

Re: Broke Lease, Apt. re-rented, Landlord holding 2 deposits!

The answer and the reason for it is better understood if you think of it in terms of the landlord's damages rather than as a question of whether the apartment is committed to a tenant. The whole re-renting concept has to do with mitigation of damages. If the apartment were re-rented and re-occupied immediately, but at $100 a month lower rent, the landlord would be entitled to damages of $100 times the number of months remaining on the prior lease (plus re-renting costs such as advertising). Similarly, the landlord is entitled to damages for the gap in compensation created by the non-consecutive paid tenancies.

Read more
Answered on 12/10/02, 1:27 pm

Re: Broke Lease, Apt. re-rented, Landlord holding 2 deposits!

The landlord is correct. He is entitled to collect the rent once but only once. Since the new tenant will not be paying rent until 01/05/03, you must pay the rent until then. If the new tenant pays a lower rent, you may be liable for the difference for the rest of your lease term.

Since you found a new tenant, the landlord presumably had no cost to re-rent the apartment. The landlord cannot collect costs he did not incur.

This is just a general summary. For a more technical statement of the law, read Civil Code �1951.2.

Read more
Answered on 12/09/02, 8:06 pm


Related Questions & Answers

More Real Estate and Real Property questions and answers in California