Legal Question in Real Estate Law in California
Terminating a lease
Though we understand breaking a lease is not very ethical, it may be necessary. If our landlord was made aware at the time we signed our 12 month lease that we were leasing only because we were in the process of loosing our home and now, due to a new law that went into effect October 1, we have the very real possibility of saving it with one of the new FHA loans, would we then be able to get out of our lease without incurring penalties. I read something on the lawguru site about an old law which basically states, if I understood it correctly, if you leased for a specific reason, with the knowlege of the landlord, and that reason no longer exists, you may be able terminate your lease without penalty. Would this apply in our case?
3 Answers from Attorneys
Re: Terminating a lease
I'm not sure where you saw that, or what it pertained to, but as I previously explained, your situation with your house is totally irrelevant to the lease, unless you put a specific clause in the lease to the effect that you may terminate it if "xyz" happens, and "xyz" has now happened, you are stuck with resolving the remaining term. I seriously doubt that a landlord would have included something like that in his lease, as it completely defeats the purpose of a long-term lease. You can attempt to negotiate, but it sounds like he's holding you to your lease.
*Due to the limitations of the LawGuru Forums, The Gibbs Law Firm, APC's (the "Firm") participation in responding to questions posted herein does not constitute legal advice, nor legal representation of the person or entity posting a question. No Attorney/Client relationship is or shall be construed to be created hereby. The information provided is general and requires that the poster obtain specific legal advice from an attorney. The poster shall not rely upon the information provided herein as legal advice nor as the basis for making any decisions of legal consequence.
Re: Terminating a lease
You are referring to the so-called "Coronation Cases." Look that topic up on Google, especially the Wikipedia description, and look at the case (in particular) of Krell v. Henry. The action took place after the death of Queen Victoria in 1901, and the cases were decided in 1902 and 1903.
These cases are factually distinguishable from your situation. In the Coronation Cases, various parties had rented second-story rooms and apartments, very short-term, along the parade route for King Edward VII's coronation parade, in order to have a better view. The king's coronation was then postponed for several months because he fell ill and required surgery. The renters were sued when they refused to pay, but the Court held that they didn't have to becuase the specific purpose for which the premises were rented was frustrated. They rented to view the coronation, but could not view the coronation.
In your case, you rented to live in the apartment. Nothing is preventing you from living in the apartment. So, you do not have the same grounds. Also, the law of England is not identical to the law of California, although English cases can be cited.
Whether you see the dissimilarity, the court will. If you breach the lease, you will be liable for the landlord's unavoidable losses; however, it must make a reasonable effort to minimize damages by re-offering the vacated premises to new prospective tenants.
Re: Terminating a lease
No.
Related Questions & Answers
Looking for something else?
10,200 active attorneys ready to answer your legal questions today.
Featured Attorneys
Earn additional revenue and grow your business.
