clause to be released from lease

Status
Not open for further replies.

cgil

New Member
We own a house in Indiana, a tenant has a lease with a clause saying that they can be free of the lease with 45 days notice if their employer relocates them and with proper documentation from the employer. They have given this notice with 4 months remaining because they built a house closer to his work and want to get out of the lease and move into their new house. His place of work is the same as it has been for the last two years. The leased house was about 20 miles away from his work so they are probably moving 15 to 18 miles closer. They have gotten a letter from their employer saying they relocated them closer to his work. His job is not one where he would need to be close. Are they legally able to use this to get them out of the lease even though the employer did not relocate them to another location for work and probably is just doing this as a favor to help him get out of the lease? We have a property management company that has been managing the house and they just want to let the tenants get out of the lease without challenging it even though they acknowledge someone at his company probably just did him a favor by writing the relocation letter.
Thank you
 
Sounds like they might have all bases "covered" in terms of getting out of their lease.

You can dispute the fact that they haven't actually been relocated but in order to get any money you'll likely have to sue them for it.

The lease is quite generous is giving a tenant this "out" on how to break their lease.

Gail
 
We were probably too generous in the lease but that is why we were using a property management company to guide us and we now see they didn't guide us very well. The tenants are from Denmark and we were told that there was a possibility that they would be relocated to a different state or back to their country and that is why we allowed the clause. It wasn't suppose to be for building a new house down the road. We were trying to be understanding in a true relocation.

I am not very happy with the property management company for not pursuing it a bit more and wanting to let them out so easily. They did agree to contact the tenants employer to ask more questions about the relocation letter. We are discussing if we should take this to small claims court. I feel the employer would have to explain in court about how and why they consider that they relocated him. If someone at his company was only doing this as a favor then they might not want to stick their neck out so far if it went to court. We were very generous with the tenants and were shocked that they would try to use this clause in the wrong way to get out of the lease. But if we aren't pretty sure we would win in court then we won't go that far.
 
I concur with Gail - if you want to get any money out of them, you'll probably have to sue them. That said, I think you have a good argument that there was no "relocation" to trigger the clause. Whether or not the employer is willing to back up the letter in court will be an interesting question, and you might very well be correct that they wouldn't want to stick out their neck. If I were you, I would not be reluctant to sue in small claims. You should make it very clear to the employer that you are going to do so, and that they may be cross-examined on their letter under oath. They might appreciate the opportunity to recant.
 
Thanks for the responses and any help. I've been trying to do some research about small claims court and landlord/tenant laws. Since the tenants are trying to manipulate the clause to fit their circumstances and the property management company didn't do a very good job with their wording I'm trying to make sure we would have a very good case for court before going ahead with it. I wouldn't want to lose, then have to pay their costs and possibly their attorney fees. Trying to decide if it would be better to just let them out of the lease, which is very frustrating. The clause says, "Lesses have the option to terminate this lease agreement after the first six months, should they be relocated, by providing a 45 day written notice. Documentation of relocation must be provided by employer.".

The property management is saying it is a technicality since a distance wasn't specified and it is wrong but they can manipulate in their favor (gray area). The tenant is saying that relocation means moving from point a to point b and that is what he is doing so he isn't breaking the lease. I think the one thing in our favor is that it says "BE relocated and documentation of relocation must be provided by employer". The employer I think just sent a letter saying they relocated so I'm not sure what other documentation we can ask for. I have asked the property management questions about can we talk to the employer, can we have these documents to help us decide if we have a good case for court, would we represent ourselves or would they have to go for court as our agent, but have not received a reply. This PM company is hard to deal with, I think they just want us to forget it so as not to take up anymore of their time. Do you know what rights we have to information if we are contracted with a company to manage our house? I still think the key is with the employer and whether they are willing to go to court and say they relocated them. The managing company told me they called the employer and left a message but have never received a reply back and apparently they left it at that and have never tried calling again. I have asked them to call again.

Thanks
 
Personally if it was me. I woud cut your loses and move on. The chances of winning such a case are up in air. You will invest too much time and money. Its not worth it in my view. Let them go and rewrite lease terms for future tenants. Your biggest problem is wording of clause its hard to get around that. If it were me I would move on and rewrite this clause and be much more specific
 
Another twist. Property management company again left a message with boss at employer saying they needed to talk to him because this may go to court. The boss panicked and told the tenant that the company would not want to be involved in any court case and they could both be possibly let go from their employer over it. Tenant called us to talk about it and was definitely interested in a compromise that I had asked for and also admitted that his company did not relocate them just that they had found a house they wanted to buy and wanted out of the lease sooner. The tenant said his boss didn't do anything wrong because the letter doesn't say the company relocated them just that they relocated themselves. The fact is they were not relocated by the employer and has no letter saying it, the employer doesn't want any part of it, the tenant admitted in a voicemail and by email that they were not relocated. I haven't seen the letter yet. We are trying to be nice and let them out of the contract early and told them that we would agree to them having possession of the house until the end of February and we would split the difference of what is left on the contract, ends March 31. We are really only asking for less then half that is left (they would pay about $200 less then half) and the tenant doesn't want to pay that and wants to pay even less.
What do you think of the situation now?
 
I think your tenant is, well, stupid. Remind him that his employer is concerned enough about a court date to consider terminating both of them. Is it worth them losing employment over this situation?

Gail
 
Tell the tenants that if they do not agree to these terms, you plan on filing a lawsuit against them for breaking their lease without cause and you will be subpeoning their boss to testify that the company did not relocate them.

Gail
 
Thanks
I am starting to lose my patients with the tenants and them trying to make us feel bad about the situation, that I am about ready to tell them that we are going to file a lawsuit. With the clause saying "Lesses have the option to terminate this lease agreement after the first six months, should they be relocated, by providing a 45 day written notice. Documentation of relocation must be provided by employer" they are saying that they bought a house and moved to the new house and so that is a relocation and their employer wrote a letter saying they moved to a new house and they can use that clause to get out of the contract. In their eyes they are doing us a favor by compromising with us but they want us to absorb the biggest chunk of what is left on the contract. In my eyes, we are doing them a favor by letting them out of the contract early and not making them pay the total amount left and asking for less then half of what is left. I just have to make sure that the clause is written well enough to hold them to it and I think it is with it saying "should they be relocated"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top