Does The Lack Of A Lease Equal A Monthly Agreement

by **camdin90** » Thu Dec 19, 2013 11:24 am

Hi all,
I have lived in an apartment developing in Los Angeles for the final 2 years. For the very first year, I was on a lease and when that lease was up, I moved to yet another unit in the same creating. A new lease for the new unit was never ever signed by me or the management company. In truth, the management business returned my security deposit and never asked for a new one.
I would like to move out of the creating now. The management company says that I would be "breaking" my lease but there is not one to break. They contend that the new unit's unsigned lease would expire on July 1, 2005, which is accurate I contend that with the absence of a signed lease that our rental agreement became month-to-month.
As such, I attempted to give 30-days notice to move out on June 16 and the on-site manager berated me and threatened all manner of nastiness on my credit report. Who is correct here? Do I have a legal leg to stand on? Can they put undesirable things on my report? Any tips on how I ought to proceed?
Thank you for any assist you can supply.

by **corcoran42** » Thu Dec 19, 2013 7:21 pm

by **bellden** » Sat Dec 28, 2013 9:29 am

They really are creating no-claim that the initial rent somehow applies? Are they claiming an one year oral lease for that new condo, or oral acceptance of the one year lease?

by **Reese** » Sat Jan 18, 2014 5:30 am

Thatis what I said - the ten month lease being up in-may possibly - but they claim that if it have been a ten month lease, that they would not have hired it for your lowered cost. That component holds true: the marketplace price tag of the condo is $1000. They charged just $850. Recognize this, then they pulled out a calculator to decide how book I'd owe if I needed a ten-month rental!
Will there be something can be achieved to get free from this unpleasant situation with no incurring the wrath of the management organization? With no written lease, may possibly they do all the nastiness that they declare?

by **Adika** » Sat Feb 08, 2014 9:39 pm

An oral lease of 1 year or less is most likely enforceable, when they may show its conditions. If you acknowledge this was a twelve months dental rent, youare caught with it. Should you choose not, then it becomes a problem of evidence. (But you'd need certainly to consider if you wish to fight this out in court.)

by **Steward** » Thu Feb 13, 2014 1:07 am

The initial lease was terminated on July 1, 2004 since the person who was on the lease with me moved out, and that's why I moved into another smaller device within the building.
It is difficult to truly reach what they're claiming since they got quite defensive and intense with risks. I believe they're declaring that there clearly was an oral contract although I do not actually recall reading, "you will remain here for just one year," and me expressing "yes."
Additionally, they state that because it is firm policy to not provide month to month leases, that they would not have I would like to transfer to the brand new device w/o an agreement to a-10 month or perhaps a twelve months lease.

by **Darnell** » Mon Mar 03, 2014 6:52 pm

Estimating movingout
Additionally, they say that since it's company policy not to give month to month leases, that they would not have let me shift into the new device w/o an arrangement to a 10 month or a one year lease.

Well, then, would not a ten-month lease be up at the conclusion of May?

Advertisments:

Sponsor Links: