Legal Question in Real Estate Law in California

I am currently renting a room in a house. I have a month-to-month lease at (with an addemdum that states that the price I was given is based on an understanding to be there at least 6 months. And that should I move prior to 6 months, an additional $300 will be applied to each month of residency upon moving out). Prior to signing any contracts, I specifically asked the landlord several times if she would be living at the property, to which she replied, "No. I have a house in _______." I've been there for almost 2 weeks now and she has been there everyday, all day, and every night, overnight... without exception. Her boyfriend and her dog have also been there for this period.. Among that issue, she has imposed "house rules" that she has come up with among which basically removes my agreed access to "full use of the rest of the house"... (i.e. I can't hang out with friends in the common areas). In liue of all that and more, I gave her my 30 day's notice about a week after I moved in. She currently has my 1st months rent ($1550), last months rent ($1550), and a $500 security deposit... I feel that because I will only be there this 1 month that I am entitled to my last months rent and security deposit back (minus the $300, and a $200 cleaning fee as per the contract). However she is stating that because I have not been there from 1 month to another, that I have not satisfied the requirements for a Month-to-month lease and my rate changes to a vacation rate in which I owe her another $300 on top of her keeping my 1st & last months rent, and security deposit... My understanding of "month-to-month" means that I could be there for 3 months, 12 months, ONE month, or otherwise... Is what she's saying legal in anyway or am I entitled to get back $1550?

Thanks,

Scott


Asked on 7/12/10, 4:05 pm

1 Answer from Attorneys
Bryan Whipple Bryan R. R. Whipple, Attorney at Law

You'll be liable for the additional $300 for each month you were in possession, without regard to when you gave notice. As to the landlord's continued presence, I doubt this violated the lease in itself, and as to the landlord's taking up space you thought you were going to have use of, I don't know how a small-claims judge would rule.

Read more
Answered on 7/13/10, 8:56 am


Related Questions & Answers

More Real Estate and Real Property questions and answers in California