Cannot leave a month-to-month lease?

[Bridgewater]

I'm seeking legal advice regarding a situation involving my niece's living arrangements in Los Angeles. Currently, she shares an apartment on a month-to-month lease with two roommates. She intends to move out and has duly provided a 30-day notice to the apartment complex.

However, they are insisting that she can only be removed from the lease if all roommates sign a document allowing her to leave. The roommates are refusing to do so because she's in a turbulent situation with them.

This requirement is possibly in conflict with tenant rights or housing laws. It's puzzling how she can be bound by a month-to-month lease yet be restricted from moving out, especially when complying with the stipulated notice period and not bound by a longer-term lease agreement.

I'd appreciate any insights or guidance on how to navigate this situation within the confines of the law.

 

[army judge]

I'm seeking legal advice regarding a situation involving my niece's living arrangements in Los Angeles.

I suggest you encourage your relative to seek her own legal advice.

If you're interested in being her financial and emotional benefactor, you could accompany her during the initial free evaluation of her issues by the attorney she'll be interviewing.

Yes, most attorneys offer a FREE of charge initial evaluation.

I'd appreciate any insights or guidance on how to navigate this situation within the confines of the law.

You can't receive legal advice via the internet.

All you can expect here or at other such sites, will amount to a discussion of a few peripheral details, with the admonishment I provided, hereinabove.

 

[adjusterjack]

I'd appreciate any insights or guidance on how to navigate this situation within the confines of the law.

For any intelligent comments you are going to have to get a copy of the lease she signed with the apartment complex and post it here, redacting any identifying information.

You will also need to obtain a copy of any written agreement between her and her roommates and post it here.

 

[zddoodah]

This requirement is possibly in conflict with tenant rights or housing laws.

It is? To which "tenant rights or housing laws" are you referring?

It's puzzling how she can be bound by a month-to-month lease yet be restricted from moving out, especially when complying with the stipulated notice period and not bound by a longer-term lease agreement.

When multiple tenants lease residential real property, the tenancy exists - and all tenants remain bound - until such time as (1) all tenants vacate the premises and the tenancy is terminated or (2) one tenant leaves and all remaining tenants and the landlord agree to release the leaving tenant of his/her obligations under the lease. This is one of many reasons why a simple roommate agreement is advisable.

 

[Bridgewater]

Thank you for the responses.

I do not have a copy of the lease, but the lease has ended, so I do not believe the lease matters at this point anyway. There is no written agreement between roommates.

They are now on a month-to-month tenancy.

I'm just not understanding how her options are to (1) be forced to stay in a toxic roommate environment, (2) move out and be obligated to pay rent at the old apartment, having to pay double rent.

It's also my understanding that one of the other roommates currently living there is not on the lease, as she was not one of the original roommates.

 

[flyingron]

It does matter. The other terms of the lease persist even when it goes month-to-month.

 

[zddoodah]

I do not have a copy of the lease, but the lease has ended, so I do not believe the lease matters at this point anyway.

That's almost certainly incorrect. You described the lease as "a month-to-month lease with two roommates." Month-to-month leases don't "end," so I don't know what you mean by the statement that "the lease has ended." Even if it isn't a month-to-month lease, a standard lease for a term will contain a term along the following lines: "Upon the expiration of the initial term set forth above, this Lease will convert to a month-to-month lease, with all other terms remaining unchanged."

They are now on a month-to-month tenancy.

And that tenancy will end upon (1) all of them vacating the premises and turning over possession to the landlord or (2) an agreement between all of the other roommates and the landlord to let your niece off the hook going forward.

I'm just not understanding how her options are to (1) be forced to stay in a toxic roommate environment, (2) move out and be obligated to pay rent at the old apartment, having to pay double rent.

I don't understand the "how" form of the question. That's how leases work. Why does your niece think she should be permitted to bail on her contractual obligation without consequence? Has she made any effort to find someone to take her place and try and get the remaining roommates and landlord to substitute the new roommate in her place?

It's also my understanding that one of the other roommates currently living there is not on the lease, as she was not one of the original roommates.

So...your niece and whoever else is on the lease probably violated the lease by allowing someone not on the lease to live here. Regardless, that's not relevant to your niece's situation.

 

[Zigner]

If the niece moves out, there will be financial repercussions, but she's not locked into the lease forever. The LL has a duty to mitigate any damages caused by her breach, as do the roommates.

 

[adjusterjack]

I'm just not understanding how her options are to (1) be forced to stay in a toxic roommate environment, (2) move out and be obligated to pay rent at the old apartment, having to pay double rent.

1 - She can't be "forced" to stay there. She can pack up and leave any time she wants to.

2 - She's not obligated to pay a damned cent until and unless a judge says so.

I'm not advising anything, just stating the obvious.

 

[flyingron]

1
2 - She's not obligated to pay a damned cent until and unless a judge says so.

That's not true. The obligation is the original contract (the lease) that is still in force under the CCP on the periodic (month-to-month) basis.

 

[adjusterjack]

Sure it's true.

You show me the lease and demand money.
I say "no."
What do you do?
You either sue me or kiss the money goodbye.

It's the judge that rules that she has to pay.

A piece of paper doesn't.

 

[Zigner]

Sure it's true.

You show me the lease and demand money.
I say "no."
What do you do?
You either sue me or kiss the money goodbye.

It's the judge that rules that she has to pay.

A piece of paper doesn't.

We're talking semantics. The contract creates the obligation. The court enforces the obligation, if necessary.

 

[adjusterjack]

We're talking semantics

Yes, we are.