Legal Question in Real Estate Law in California

Re: lease agreement termination

After a fair amount of research on the interesting issue raised by your question, and finding no authority one way of the other, I'm only able to tell you what I THINK a court would or should decide; I certainly can't assure you I'm right. It will be interesting to see what other answers you get.

I'm pretty sure of the first two paragraphs below:

Prior to the automatic termination of the lease on December 31, 2008, all three roommates are bound by its terms, and if one or two of you skipped out before then, the remaining ones would still have to pay all the rent. This seems to be part of what the landlord is saying.

On December 31, 2008 the lease will expire. No one needs to give anyone else any notices. No one is under any further obligation to anyone (except for wind-up stuff like return of the deposit, payment for damage, etc. etc.).

What your current roommates and the landlord do after 12/31/08 is, I think, NOT BINDING on you.

However, there is a principle, set forth in Civil Code section 1945 and discussed in quite a few appellate cases, that when a tenant holds over with the consent or acquiescence of the landlord, that a new tenancy is created (or the old one extended) on a month-to-month basis on the same conditions as the old lease except for its term (expiration date). If this were literally true, it would bind you, because you are a party to the old expired-but-extended lease. However, after looking at several decisions and several treatises, I get an impression that the presumed lease extension would only apply to those of the former group of roommates who actually remained in possession. This is because the law is apparently meant as a means to prevent those who "hold over" from becoming trespassers, when in fact the landlord is acquiescing in their continued possession by accepting rent, or the like.

I do not think the purpose or intent of Civil Code 1945 or the cases interpreting it is to make a party captive to a lease he co-signed beyond the end of its written term. I could not, however, find any case law holding one way or another on the issue presented.

I could be wrong.