Legal Question in Real Estate Law in California

Are you a co-signer [not renter, merely guaranteeing the rent will be paid] or a co-renter? 30 days before the one year lease ends, either side must state that they do not intend to renew the lease or continue as a tenant, or else the lease is renewed as a month to month lease/tenancy. If you give them at least thirty days notice, then you are saying you will not be part of any renewed landlord/tenant relationship. The divorce agreement does not require you to co-sign beyond the end of the lease. Since the month to month is a new contract, the parties can create any new terms they want, including that they will not be part of the contract. Tell the landlord if he disagrees to cite case law or statutes that support his position.

A lease ends when it ends. If the tenant fails to move out, pays rent, and the landlord accepts the rent, this is presumed to create an extension agreement on the same terms as the expired lease, except that it is month-to-month. The presumption is rebuttable by evidence showing a contrary intent or agreement, such as express language in the lease covering such holdover tenancies. Civil Code section 1945.

I am uncertain as to whether the renewed or extended rental, although on the same terms as the expired lease except being month-to-month, would also carry with it the liability of a co-signer. It seems to me I have seen a case saying the guaranty expires and is not renewed or extended, but this may be due to the way that particular co-signer's guaranty was worded. It seems unfair to drag a co-signer's obligations out indefinitely, and jopefully the initial lease can be read so that the guaranty is limited to the initial term, and not extensions of any kind, including those created by a CC 1945 extension.

Nevertheless, I'm unsure. maybe someone else can give a more certain answer. Sorry, I could not locate the case I seem to remember. In any event, your potential liability would be a lot less after the rental goes month-to-month.

I agree with Mr. Shers about giving notice to the landlord. As to the month-to-month being a "new contract," my recent research shows that there is a split of authority in California appellate cases at to whether CC 1945 creates a new contract on the same terms as the old one, or whether the old lease is merely extended by operation of law. Clearly, it usually makes no difference, but in determining whether a third-party guarantee gets glued onto the new deal or not, "new vs. extended" could be significant.