Rent, Utilities Roommate with child, won't pay utilites for the child

[PayrollHRGuy]

The utilities are all in my name, and my lease with the landlord has no reference to utilities.

I'm not clear on what you mean by "more than one sublease", none of my sub-tenents, have leases with anyone under them, but I have subleases with multiple sub-tenants. how is this relevent?

I think we are getting away from the point, which is can a parent be charged for utilities for their child, or are children legally exempt.

What do the leases you had each of your tenants say about the issue?

 

[Zigner]

I think we are getting away from the point, which is can a parent be charged for utilities for their child, or are children legally exempt.

Asked and answered - many times. The law doesn't address this, so it falls back to your contract.

 

[adjusterjack]

You originally wrote:

The rental agreement specifies that all utilities will be divided equally per person.

If "per person" is a direct quote from the agreement then a child is a person and the mother pays a share for two persons.

If you aren't willing to enforce that now, then wait until each rental agreement comes up for renewal and change the terms to something like "pro rata share per occupant."

 

[Zigner]

You originally wrote:



If "per person" is a direct quote from the agreement then a child is a person and the mother pays a share for two persons.

Unless one takes "person" to mean "renter" (e.g. "each person who rents a room here has to pay an equal portion of the utilities"). Since the child is not a "renter", then the child wouldn't be included. Ambiguous.

If you aren't willing to enforce that now, then wait until each rental agreement comes up for renewal and change the terms to something like "pro rata share per occupant."

Not ambiguous.

 

[zddoodah]

I'm not clear on what you mean by "more than one sublease", none of my sub-tenents, have leases with anyone under them, but I have subleases with multiple sub-tenants. how is this relevent?

I'm asking about your subleases with your subtenants. It's relevant because the language of those leases is what determines what they owe you for utilities.

I think we are getting away from the point, which is can a parent be charged for utilities for their child, or are children legally exempt.

As you've been told many times already, there is no law on this issue. Whether the particular subtenant owes you for 1/7 or 2/8 of the utilities depends entirely on what your subleases say. If you don't want to quote that language, then there's nothing more that anyone here can tell you.

 

[mightymoose]

I'm certain this has been answered.
1. Demand payment you believe is due.
2. Evict for failure to pay.
3. Seek a judgment from small claims for unpaid bills as outlined in your lease agreement.

 

[adjusterjack]

Unless one takes "person" to mean "renter" (e.g. "each person who rents a room here has to pay an equal portion of the utilities"). Since the child is not a "renter", then the child wouldn't be included. Ambiguous.

If one takes "person" to mean "renter" one would be in error because "person" and "renter" are two distinct concepts. A "person" is a human being who is not always a "renter" and a "renter" is not always a "person."

Courts routinely enforce contracts based on the plain meaning of words without changing the meaning. It's when a word, itself, may have more than one meaning that a court must look to the intentions of the parties.

In this case, the meaning of "person" should not be in dispute. If the LL meant the terms to be otherwise, he should have written them so.

Frankly, I think he got it right with "per person" because each person uses a share of the utilities and should be charged accordingly. That the tenant disagrees does not make the term ambiguous.

To that extent I agree with mightymoose on the recommended action.

 

[shrinkmaster]

No those questions are on point and relevant to your answer

 

[Zigner]

If one takes "person" to mean "renter" one would be in error because "person" and "renter" are two distinct concepts. A "person" is a human being who is not always a "renter" and a "renter" is not always a "person."

But what if the agreement is "each person that is renting"?

 

[mightymoose]

But what if the agreement is "each person that is renting"?

I think that would be a weak argument. It seems obvious what the norm is. Besides, the parent (person) renting is reasonably responsible for their child.

 

[Zigner]

I think that would be a weak argument. It seems obvious what the norm is.

It speaks to the lack of a meeting of the minds.

Besides, the parent (person) renting is reasonably responsible for their child.

Yes, but that doesn't mean the child is renting.

 

[adjusterjack]

This is what the OP wrote.

The rental agreement specifies that all utilities will be divided equally per person.

Emphasis mine.

Until the OP writes something different it seems useless to speculate with additional words and meanings that aren't there.

 

[Zigner]

This is what the OP wrote.



Emphasis mine.

Until the OP writes something different it seems useless to speculate with additional words and meanings that aren't there.

Fair enough. My position is that the OP paraphrased a verbal agreement. I'm sure what was written here was made to put the OP in the best light possible.

 

[adjusterjack]

Fair enough. My position is that the OP paraphrased a verbal agreement. I'm sure what was written here was made to put the OP in the best light possible.

I'm sure you are right. But until the OP comes back and clarifies, I wouldn't waste any more time on it.