Lease specifies break-in damage paid by tenant

[epoche]

Jurisdiction

Virginia

Here's the situation: On a month-to-month lease in an apartment building that was acquired by a new management company. They are asking for a new month-to-month lease to be signed. There is a clause in the new lease that states:
"In the event of a break-in or forcible entry to the property the Tenant is responsible for all costs to repair damage to the premises."

Is such a clause enforceable in Virginia (Shenandoah County)?

Thank you for any input.

 

[Zigner]

I see no reason why it's not enforceable. You would be wise to obtain renter's insurance.

For reference: Virginia Residential Landlord and Tenant Act

 

[adjusterjack]

When you sign it, it means that you agree to it and It becomes enforceable.

If you don't like the terms, don't sign.

Be prepared to move if you get a termination notice.

If the LL allows you to stay, you will only be responsible for damage you cause, other than wear and tear.

Familiarize yourself with the Virginia landlord tenant statute.

Code of Virginia Code - Chapter 12. Virginia Residential Landlord and Tenant Act

You'll find that such a provision is not prohibited by the act.

 

[adjusterjack]

You would be wise to obtain renter's insurance.

While that is very true, and encouraged, a renter's policy does not cover break in damage to the rented dwelling.

 

[Zigner]

While that is very true, and encouraged, a renter's policy does not cover break in damage to the rented dwelling.

Thanks for the clarification. That was in the back of my mind when I posted...I should have promoted it to front-of-mind privileges.

 

[adjusterjack]

Property managers and landlords that require tenants to have renter's insurance are often clueless about what the policy does and doesn't do.

 

[zddoodah]

On a month-to-month lease in an apartment building that was acquired by a new management company. They are asking for a new month-to-month lease to be signed.

"They" who? The tenants? Or the new landlord?

There is a clause in the new lease that states:
"In the event of a break-in or forcible entry to the property the Tenant is responsible for all costs to repair damage to the premises."

Is such a clause enforceable in Virginia (Shenandoah County)?

I can't think of any reason why it wouldn't be enforceable.

When you sign it, it means that you agree to it and It becomes enforceable.

That's not correct. There are lots of state landlord-tenant laws that make certain lease provisions unenforceable despite being signed off by the tenant. In this case, I don't think any law exists that would make this particular provision unenforceable.

 

[adjusterjack]

When you sign it, it means that you agree to it and It becomes enforceable.

That's not correct. There are lots of state landlord-tenant laws that make certain lease provisions unenforceable despite being signed off by the tenant.

It is correct. I covered that in the following comment.

Familiarize yourself with the Virginia landlord tenant statute.

Code of Virginia Code - Chapter 12. Virginia Residential Landlord and Tenant Act

You'll find that such a provision is not prohibited by the act.

 

[Zigner]

That's not correct. There are lots of state landlord-tenant laws that make certain lease provisions unenforceable despite being signed off by the tenant. In this case, I don't think any law exists that would make this particular provision unenforceable.

I disagree with your response to adjusterjack, as do you, considering you went on to state the same thing he said.

Adjusterjack didn't say that any clause was enforceable just because the lease was signed by the tenant, rather, he was pointing out that this clause was enforceable once it was signed by the tenant.

 

[epoche]

Thanks to all of you for the responses. I couldn't find anything in the VRLTA under 55.1-1208 that would prohibit enforcement, but thought I would check if perhaps there is something outside of the VRLTA that might affect it. Seems not. The provision seemed odd in that it is conferring a risk the landlord can insure against to the tenant, who cannot insure against the risk (at least not under a typical renter's policy).

This was the only objectionable new language that I could see.

It sounds like the choices for staying in the unit are to sign as is and accept the risk, ask for the clause to be struck, or stay under the old lease and hope they don't serve a termination notice.

Thanks again.