Legal Question in Real Estate Law in California

Re: Landlord holding us responsible for rent after verbally okaying moveout

Dear Inquirer:

Nothing herein shall create an attorney-client relationship, unless a written retainer agreement is executed by the attorney and client. This communication contains general information only. Nothing herein shall constitute an attorney-client communication nor legal advice. There likely are deadlines and time-limits associated with your case; you should contact an attorney of your choice for legal advice specific to your personal situation, at once.

If you haven't already done so, please visit my

web site at --

http://home.pacbell.net/edbjr/ OR

http://www.CaliforniaDivorceAttorney.com

The site contains quite a bit of general information about California Family Law, Tenants' Rights, and Juvenile Dependencies, as well as information about me (education, experience, et cetera) and my office (location, hours, fees, policies).

NOW, IN RESPONSE TO YOUR INQUIRY --

If you are willing to spend the time in small claims court defending yourself, and can accept an uncertain outcome, don't pay. If you want to assure the minimum in hassles, pay up. Otherwise, just wait and see what your landlord does. At this point, it's up to you.

Thanks for sharing your interesting inquiry with us on LawGuru, and good luck with your case.

Re: Landlord holding us responsible for rent after verbally okaying moveout

Normally, when a lease for a fixed term expires and the tenant remains with the consent of the landlord, the tenancy becomes month-to-month and 30 days notice of termination by the tenant is required. A new law effective January 1, 2003 will require more notice by the landlord to terminate in certain cases.

The landlord certainly can waive the full 30 day notice, but I wonder whether he did. If he only said you could move out, I don't know if he also agreed to forego rent for the rest of the 30 days.

Re: Landlord holding us responsible for rent after verbally okaying moveout

When a term lease expires and the tenants remain in possession and continue to pay rent, the situation results in a month-to-month tenancy whether or not there is a formal agreement to that effect. It's a statutory presumption in California. See Civil Code section 1945.

So, you and the landlord were under mutual and reciprocal 30-day notice requirements respecting any change in the rental terms, including termination, under an implied rental agreement.

When the landlord orally agreed to allow you to move out on two weeks' notice instead of one month, that would, arguably at least, be an enforceable modification of the implied rental agreement. The landlord might have some defenses, but very likely if a small-claims judge believed your story about the oral modification, you would be more likely than not to prevail.

The problem is that relying on a court to enforce your right is a hassle and a risk. You have to weigh the money involved versus the time and trouble and the sometimes capricious nature of small-claims judges. You have to be prepared to refute any spurious defenses or distorted facts the landlord may raise. You have to appear credible, and have an explanation why none of this got put down in writing.