Breaking Lease - New Tenant Signed Lease, but Won't Pay

[Frustrated_Tenant]

Jurisdiction

Florida

New to this forum, apologies if this has already been answered elsewhere.

My situation is I am breaking a 3 year lease after 1 year. Landlord said I would be "responsible for finding new fully qualified renters, willing to rent at least for the two years remaining on your contract."

I paid money to place ads on a couple of sites had about 5 interested parties, but the 1st party eventually signed a 2-year lease with the landlord.

The new tenant appears to be getting cold feet (due to random issues like the condition of the floor and no refrigerator, etc.) and has not sent his security deposit in the mail. Again, he signed a 2-year lease with the landlord which I have a copy of.

The landlord seems to still be putting the responsibility on my shoulders to find a new tenant. I feel I have met my obligation. I am 2 weeks from closing on a house, a decision I made after being notified the new tenant had signed a lease.

I can provide the legalese in my lease regarding breaking the lease (it only mentions abandonment).

Thoughts?

 

[army judge]

Breaking a lease is often impossible.
If, however, you negotiate a buyout, reduce the terms to writing, get it signed by all parties, pay the buyout in full; leases can be broken legally.

Obtaining a replacement tenant rarely works.

Why?

Many tenants go into default, or breach the lease terms.
When that happens, the original leaseholder is still on the hook.

Talk to your landlord about buying out your lease.
Negotiate a full buyout.
Otherwise, this will haunt you.
The LL will sue you.
It will become quite unpleasant.

Don't waste time seeking someone to replace you, who'll only disappoint both of you.

 

[Frustrated_Tenant]

In case you misunderstood the situation, a new lease was signed by both the new tenant and the landlord.

If you're implying that a new tenant with a new lease can break their lease at anytime (without negative consequence) and I (as the former tenant) would be the one responsible to cover the remaining lease period on the new lease, I feel you are dismissing the new lease as a valid contract.

I appreciate the response, but I don't follow your logic at all.

More importantly, what's the legal basis of your opinion?

 

[adjusterjack]

If you're implying that a new tenant with a new lease can break their lease at anytime (without negative consequence) and I (as the former tenant) would be the one responsible to cover the remaining lease period on the new lease, I feel you are dismissing the new lease as a valid contract.

That paragraph has to be addressed by breaking it down into its parts.

1 - The contract with the new tenant is not valid until the new tenant hands over money. That's called "consideration" and all contracts must have it to be valid.

2 - You are not responsible to cover the remaining cost of the lease. If you leave without getting a new tenant and stop paying, the landlord is required by law to mitigate by re-renting as soon as possible and you would only be responsible for rent until that date.

If you keep paying, of course, then you are still "responsible" because, as long as the landlord gets your money he doesn't have to do anything.

Since you have already qualified on your home and will own it in two weeks, I suggest you not discuss this any further with the landlord and when you close, just pack up and move. Then give the landlord the keys and a written letter surrendering the premises.

You'll lose your deposit and might be responsible for additional amounts but once you are gone and the place is empty and the landlord isn't getting any money, you should be in a stronger position to negotiate a settlement in writing that leaves you with no further obligation.

Read the statute at:

Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine
App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0000-0099/0083/Sections/0083.595.html

Note that Paragraph 3 is a risk but it's only a small one as a landlord (I was one) would have to be a damned fool (I wasn't) to leave the property vacant with no money coming in and then sue you at some far off future date.

In addition to getting no money, a vacant house is vulnerable to vandalism, theft, and increased insurance rates.

 

[Frustrated_Tenant]

That paragraph has to be addressed by breaking it down into its parts.
...

In addition to getting no money, a vacant house is vulnerable to vandalism, theft, and increased insurance rates.

Thanks for the reply and references.

I have not been able to find any citation that says a signed lease is not valid until the tenant pays the deposit.

Could you please point out that reference?

I understand your points, but in a worst case scenario, let's say the landlord cannot find ANOTHER renter (remember, there was a renter that signed a lease, a legally binding contract in my opinion), I have neither the desire nor the financial capacity to pay rent and mortgage at the same time.

It does not matter what I think, I am interested in what the law says about my legal obligation after a new lease has been signed. To me, the transfer of responsibility occurred once the new tenant signed a new lease.

If you could please amplify your comments. I honestly am trying to understand what the law says. Again, appreciate the references and links to FL state law.

 

[army judge]

In case you misunderstood the situation, a new lease was signed by both the new tenant and the landlord.

If you're implying that a new tenant with a new lease can break their lease at anytime (without negative consequence) and I (as the former tenant) would be the one responsible to cover the remaining lease period on the new lease, I feel you are dismissing the new lease as a valid contract.

I appreciate the response, but I don't follow your logic at all.

More importantly, what's the legal basis of your opinion?

Not to worry, you're an adult and are free to do that you deem best.

I hope everything works out well for you.

 

[Frustrated_Tenant]

We'll see.

I'm leaning towards getting a legal read on the situation from an attorney and as long as it's logical, I will let that guide my actions.

I cannot afford to lose ~$6K I have tied up in earnest money for the new house, so I do have my fingers crossed.

 

[adjusterjack]

I have not been able to find any citation that says a signed lease is not valid until the tenant pays the deposit.

Could you please point out that reference?

Contract law is complicated and there may not be one citation to point to, especially without reading the potential tenant's lease. Consideration, however, is a basic part of contract law and you can learn about it by googling contract law.

But what if the potential tenant's contract is valid. That doesn't do you any good. The contract isn't with you. If the potential tenant walks away the landlord still has the option of choosing to enforce your contract and ignore the potential tenant who walked away and there would be nothing you could do to compel the landlord to go after the potential tenant.