Legal Question in Landlord & Tenant Law in California

The lease controls. If the lease tells you that you have to give notice, you have to give notice, otherwise it renews automatically for another 30 days. I note that this is a sublease. I hope that you two have permission to sublease in the master lease.

I completely disagree with Mr. Roach. This is one of the most poorly written lease clauses I've ever seen and is very confusing, but I don't think it can legally be interpreted as he does. Generally contracts, including leases, must be interpreted to give meaning to all parts, which would suggest that the notice requirement must mean something. My guess is that is what he is focusing on. On the other hand, however, another rule of contract interpretation is that specifics take precedence over general or vague terms. In this case we have a totally vague term, "shall give written notice," that does not specify under what conditions or notice of what is to be given. Against that we have a very specific term that says the tenancy will be three months. Another specific term that it shall end on the 31st. Many months, including November, do not have 31 days. In addition, a three month tenancy could end on the last day of the third month or the first day of the next; so it makes sense to clearly state it (many high dollar commercial leases even set the time of day the lease ends). Lastly, and most importantly to my mind is that it very clearly states that there shall be no holding over under the lease. So although, as I said, it is confusing, I think the weight of the evidence is strongly in favor of the lease terminating and both your right to occupy the premises and your obligation to pay rent end October 31.

Mr. McCormick is the one who is confused. His confusion stems from the fact that he does not know the difference between a fixed term tenancy (AKA tenancy for years), a periodic tenancy and a hold over tenancy. I will explain and let you re-read your lease and you can see that you are mistaken, not the landlord.

A fixed term tenancy, also known as a tenancy for years, is a tenancy with a definite time period. In your particular case, the fixed term was for three (3) months. The term tenancy for years confuses people, because they think that a fixed term must be over a year to be valid. It does not. (If it is over a year, it has to be in writing, but that is another issue.) All that is required is that the tenancy be for a fixed time.

When a fixed term tenancy ends, the fixed term is over. This is what you thought, and I understand why you did not give notice. But the problem remains as to what happens if the tenant remains in the property. By law, when a fixed term tenancy ends, and the tenant continues to occupy the property and pay rent, a "periodic tenancy" is created. "If a lessee of real property remains in possession thereof after the expiration of the hiring, and the lessor accepts rent from him, the parties are presumed to have renewed the hiring on the same terms and for the same time, not exceeding one month when the rent is payable monthly, nor in any case one year." (Civ. Code, sect. 1945.)

A periodic tenancy is also called a month to month tenancy. A periodic tenancy has no specific ending date, and just keeps rolling over and over. To end a periodic tenancy, the parties have to give notice. (See Civil Code, sect. 1946.)

Now here is where Mr. McCormick's confusion comes in. When a fixed term ends, and a periodic tenancy is created, it is not a holdover tenancy. A holdover tenancy is a form of trespass, and is wrongful. A holdover tenancy is what happens when the tenant occupies the lease premises after the lease term expires, without the landlord's consent.