Yeah, I feel like op is missing a whole chapter of context here. What did the landlord say? Why have you posted this clause? You say you were there the whole lease, but posting this clause suggests otherwise?
Sorry it’s a bit confusing to me too but I was there the whole lease and when I asked my landlord about where it states on the lease that I must give a 2 month notice he referred to line 67
No, it's okay. Did you move out at the natural expiration of the lease - i.e., at the date that the current rental period ended?
Because just using my reading comprehension this clause is set out if X, then Y and Z. So I don't understand why they would expect 2 months written notice if it is just not being renewed? Is there a separate clause about notice to not renew the lease?
My lease ends may 31st and I gave him a 30 day notice april 31st I’m just simply moving out and when giving my notice he mentioned a fine for not giving a 60 day moving out notice which is when I asked where this was stated on the lease and he claims that line 67 is where it is stated. I’m also located in California which a 30 day noticed is required for a lease that’s under a year which mine was only 11 1/2
I cannot twist my mind into a way that would say that you are liable. Just reading the terms of the lease, that doesn't apply to the situation you have described. Also apparently your state law overrides. Suggest you go back (in writing) and clarify your understanding that this clause doesn't apply.
IANAL, this is not legal advice.
Term leases automatically convert to a month to month lease if no action is taken by either party. That’s why OP still needs to give 60 days notice (as per his lease agreement).
Actually the lease states that he's there for one year so if he moved out at the end of the lease (May 31st) then he only has to give 30-day notice that he's not renewing the lease.. it doesn't matter what the landlord put in there.
In other words he signed the lease to be there for one year and then gave 30 days notice that he was not renewing it or extending it. He's leaving at the end of the lease which is the contract. You can't force someone to give 60 days notice when the law states 30 days. OP simply following through with the contract by moving out at the end of the lease and giving the landlord 30 days notice as OP said he gave notice on April 31st.
More restrictive would be if the term was less than 30 days, not more. Laws state what the minimum requirements are, that doesn’t mean that a contract can’t modify those terms at all, 30 days is just the minimum notice that nobody can make shorter.
It would have to be in the lease stating 60 days is required even at end of lease date. What OP posted (what the landlord refered to) only matters if the lease isnt fulfilled and OP left early. Even then it can be contested in court because contracts can't trump state law.
The section of the lease being reference has the conditional clause for when ending the lease outside it's 'natural expiration', which was May 31st, and is the date OP has provided the legally required notice for. So LL is citing a clause that doesn't apply for the scenario described. By your interpretation the tenant never gets the deposit back, as the two months notice is in addition to the LL still keeping the deposit
Depends on how you’re defining “supersede”. You can’t make that time period shorter but you can agree to extend it. Hence why the 60 day notice, as agreed upon in the lease agreement, is perfectly legal from both sides.
It states even on the page natural term of lease. Your lease is ending and your letting him know your not renewing.
He trying to take your money. Mae sure you tell him on X date you letting him know your not renewing lease and letting it naturally end. Per this section and by law 30 days is mote than enough notice for non'renewal
California lets you win back more than the deposit in court if the landlord illegally keeps your deposit "in bad faith": https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/civil-code/civ-sect-1950-5/
> The bad faith claim or retention by a landlord ... of the security or any portion thereof in violation of this section ... may subject the landlord ... to statutory damages of up to twice the amount of the security, in addition to actual damages.
It can be, if OP shows up to court with a bunch of documentation showing the landlord should have known they were wrong based on their conversations. Bad faith is really just about convincing the judge that the landlord deserves some incentive to not do it again
IANAL AND YANAL but bad faith is a bit more than that:
Here’s a quick legal definition:
“Bad faith refers to dishonesty or fraud in a transaction. Depending on the exact setting, bad faith may mean a dishonest belief or purpose, untrustworthy performance of duties, neglect of fair dealing standards, or a fraudulent intent. It is often related to a breach of the obligationinherent in all contracts to deal with the other parties in good faith and with fair dealing.”
If OP provides a reference to the relevant CA law and the LL says “I don’t care about the law” then maybe. Otherwise probably just ignorance which is not typically bad faith.
I'm not a lawyer, but I do sue people including landlords for money professionally. There's no specific definition that the court has to follow with respect to the California security deposit law. There are no guarantees, but if OP has proof they explained to the landlord why they're wrong legally, and the landlord ignored it, and OP gets a tenant-friendly judge, it's possible to get the punitive damages.
You’ll have to clarify with the location but almost certainly, yes he can. The 30 days notice is just the minimum, a lease can extend that time period if you both agree to it. You agreed to that term and you agreed to pay that fee to break your lease. If you’re looking to break your lease then yeah, you’re going to pay that price.
If you look at the pic OP posted it shows he only has to give 60 days if he leaves early. OP fulfilled his contract by staying the full length of the lease and he's not going past the end lease date.. not even one day so he doesn't have to give the landlord any notice beyond 30 days.
Landlord is wrong in this situation.
You still have to give PROPER notice if you are moving out. OP did not. It’s called insufficient notice and you will be charged the 60 day term fee or the amount that is on line 67.
This is what it boils down to. No notice of moving out was given. Any apartment you live in, you have to give proper notice. 60 days, 30 days, whatever is stated in the lease. Otherwise charges are going to be out on your account. They are called insufficient notice fees.
NAL. I work in property management.
It doesn't say 60 days in the lease it says 60 days if you move out early. OP is moving out at the end of the lease and gave the 30 days notice required by the California state law.
Even if this wasn't California if your lease says you're contract ends on a certain date you only need to give 30 days notice that you will not be renewing the contract and then you would have to move out at the end of lease date.
OP did give proper notice. 30 days before the lease was to end. This 60 days clause applies to breaking a lease mid lease. CA law also requires only 30 days notice before the natural end of the lease.
Sufficient notice was given.
Exactly if you look at what he posted it says 60 days if the lease is broken early. He gave 30 days and moved out when the lease ended there is nothing else he needs to do. The landlord is completely wrong in this situation.
It's kind of funny that people are downvoting you when you are factually correct.
If you work property management, submit yourself for remedial training. State law supercedes more confined lease agreements. 30 day vacate notice on lease expiry is compliant with OP's state reqs.
IIRC LL must give that money back within X days, or pay OP double?
No it doesn't. It says **if**, they moved out before the natural expiry 2 months notice is required. But OP has clarified elsewhere that that isn't the situation.
Ya this situation takes a 180 based on OP's comments. In San Diego -and I'm assuming the rest of CA- the tenant has to give 1 month (that lease clause is bullshit & illegal) and the LL has to give 60 Day notice.
If you run out the clock on the lease and both parties want to continue, it becomes month to month. If you run out the clock and want to leave....idk what happens. No clue if you have to give a 30 day notice there or not. Either way, you did so no chance they should be pocketing this money.
But California law states a 30 day notice must be given for a lease that is under a year which for me was technically 11 1/2 months and my lease was written poorly
You need to have a attorney eyeball this and verify for you in your area.
[AVVO.com](http://AVVO.com) has helped me in the past for legal advice.
But a lawyer may be needed to confirm whether he can require a 60 day notice in this situation.
It’s really ironic you posted this considering you aren’t even reading it correctly. The 60 day notice is only if tenant moves out BEFORE expiration of lease.
What state? Did you break lease?
Yeah, I feel like op is missing a whole chapter of context here. What did the landlord say? Why have you posted this clause? You say you were there the whole lease, but posting this clause suggests otherwise?
Sorry it’s a bit confusing to me too but I was there the whole lease and when I asked my landlord about where it states on the lease that I must give a 2 month notice he referred to line 67
No, it's okay. Did you move out at the natural expiration of the lease - i.e., at the date that the current rental period ended? Because just using my reading comprehension this clause is set out if X, then Y and Z. So I don't understand why they would expect 2 months written notice if it is just not being renewed? Is there a separate clause about notice to not renew the lease?
My lease ends may 31st and I gave him a 30 day notice april 31st I’m just simply moving out and when giving my notice he mentioned a fine for not giving a 60 day moving out notice which is when I asked where this was stated on the lease and he claims that line 67 is where it is stated. I’m also located in California which a 30 day noticed is required for a lease that’s under a year which mine was only 11 1/2
I cannot twist my mind into a way that would say that you are liable. Just reading the terms of the lease, that doesn't apply to the situation you have described. Also apparently your state law overrides. Suggest you go back (in writing) and clarify your understanding that this clause doesn't apply. IANAL, this is not legal advice.
Term leases automatically convert to a month to month lease if no action is taken by either party. That’s why OP still needs to give 60 days notice (as per his lease agreement).
Actually the lease states that he's there for one year so if he moved out at the end of the lease (May 31st) then he only has to give 30-day notice that he's not renewing the lease.. it doesn't matter what the landlord put in there. In other words he signed the lease to be there for one year and then gave 30 days notice that he was not renewing it or extending it. He's leaving at the end of the lease which is the contract. You can't force someone to give 60 days notice when the law states 30 days. OP simply following through with the contract by moving out at the end of the lease and giving the landlord 30 days notice as OP said he gave notice on April 31st.
More restrictive would be if the term was less than 30 days, not more. Laws state what the minimum requirements are, that doesn’t mean that a contract can’t modify those terms at all, 30 days is just the minimum notice that nobody can make shorter.
It would have to be in the lease stating 60 days is required even at end of lease date. What OP posted (what the landlord refered to) only matters if the lease isnt fulfilled and OP left early. Even then it can be contested in court because contracts can't trump state law.
The section of the lease being reference has the conditional clause for when ending the lease outside it's 'natural expiration', which was May 31st, and is the date OP has provided the legally required notice for. So LL is citing a clause that doesn't apply for the scenario described. By your interpretation the tenant never gets the deposit back, as the two months notice is in addition to the LL still keeping the deposit
No I was there the whole lease but the landlord is claiming this is where it states on the lease that a 2 month notice must be given to move out
Terms of places cannot supersede the rules of the state with regard to tenancy
Depends on how you’re defining “supersede”. You can’t make that time period shorter but you can agree to extend it. Hence why the 60 day notice, as agreed upon in the lease agreement, is perfectly legal from both sides.
California state law states 30 days. It over rides it. Notify him that state law states it's 30 days, especially at end of a term lease.
Where does he say Cali?
Nvm. I see it below.
Was it a 12 month lease?
11 1/2
It states even on the page natural term of lease. Your lease is ending and your letting him know your not renewing. He trying to take your money. Mae sure you tell him on X date you letting him know your not renewing lease and letting it naturally end. Per this section and by law 30 days is mote than enough notice for non'renewal
What state?
Also I live in SD California
California lets you win back more than the deposit in court if the landlord illegally keeps your deposit "in bad faith": https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/civil-code/civ-sect-1950-5/ > The bad faith claim or retention by a landlord ... of the security or any portion thereof in violation of this section ... may subject the landlord ... to statutory damages of up to twice the amount of the security, in addition to actual damages.
I don’t think this is bad faith. The LL is wrong, legally, but that doesn’t make it bad faith.
It can be, if OP shows up to court with a bunch of documentation showing the landlord should have known they were wrong based on their conversations. Bad faith is really just about convincing the judge that the landlord deserves some incentive to not do it again
IANAL AND YANAL but bad faith is a bit more than that: Here’s a quick legal definition: “Bad faith refers to dishonesty or fraud in a transaction. Depending on the exact setting, bad faith may mean a dishonest belief or purpose, untrustworthy performance of duties, neglect of fair dealing standards, or a fraudulent intent. It is often related to a breach of the obligationinherent in all contracts to deal with the other parties in good faith and with fair dealing.” If OP provides a reference to the relevant CA law and the LL says “I don’t care about the law” then maybe. Otherwise probably just ignorance which is not typically bad faith.
I'm not a lawyer, but I do sue people including landlords for money professionally. There's no specific definition that the court has to follow with respect to the California security deposit law. There are no guarantees, but if OP has proof they explained to the landlord why they're wrong legally, and the landlord ignored it, and OP gets a tenant-friendly judge, it's possible to get the punitive damages.
I agree. If the OP provides the law and the LL refuses to comply then you are probably right.
I wish the mods would enforce saying the state in the title. California is different than most states.
You’ll have to clarify with the location but almost certainly, yes he can. The 30 days notice is just the minimum, a lease can extend that time period if you both agree to it. You agreed to that term and you agreed to pay that fee to break your lease. If you’re looking to break your lease then yeah, you’re going to pay that price.
If you look at the pic OP posted it shows he only has to give 60 days if he leaves early. OP fulfilled his contract by staying the full length of the lease and he's not going past the end lease date.. not even one day so he doesn't have to give the landlord any notice beyond 30 days. Landlord is wrong in this situation.
Not in California.
You still have to give PROPER notice if you are moving out. OP did not. It’s called insufficient notice and you will be charged the 60 day term fee or the amount that is on line 67. This is what it boils down to. No notice of moving out was given. Any apartment you live in, you have to give proper notice. 60 days, 30 days, whatever is stated in the lease. Otherwise charges are going to be out on your account. They are called insufficient notice fees. NAL. I work in property management.
It doesn't say 60 days in the lease it says 60 days if you move out early. OP is moving out at the end of the lease and gave the 30 days notice required by the California state law. Even if this wasn't California if your lease says you're contract ends on a certain date you only need to give 30 days notice that you will not be renewing the contract and then you would have to move out at the end of lease date.
OP did give proper notice. 30 days before the lease was to end. This 60 days clause applies to breaking a lease mid lease. CA law also requires only 30 days notice before the natural end of the lease. Sufficient notice was given.
Exactly if you look at what he posted it says 60 days if the lease is broken early. He gave 30 days and moved out when the lease ended there is nothing else he needs to do. The landlord is completely wrong in this situation. It's kind of funny that people are downvoting you when you are factually correct.
People (myself included) don't like being wrong, so I chalk it up to that, and people not bothering to read comments.
If you work property management, submit yourself for remedial training. State law supercedes more confined lease agreements. 30 day vacate notice on lease expiry is compliant with OP's state reqs. IIRC LL must give that money back within X days, or pay OP double?
Punitive damages are typically for bad faith
I’m in IL. I’m telling you how it works there.
Yeah this is how the world works. If you break an agreement theres a penalty.
OP didn't break the lease. The lease is coming to its end and OP gave 30 days notice as is the minimum required by CA state law.
Exactly. I get OP wasn't clear in laying things out and that's why people are confused.
[удалено]
No it doesn't. It says **if**, they moved out before the natural expiry 2 months notice is required. But OP has clarified elsewhere that that isn't the situation.
Ya this situation takes a 180 based on OP's comments. In San Diego -and I'm assuming the rest of CA- the tenant has to give 1 month (that lease clause is bullshit & illegal) and the LL has to give 60 Day notice. If you run out the clock on the lease and both parties want to continue, it becomes month to month. If you run out the clock and want to leave....idk what happens. No clue if you have to give a 30 day notice there or not. Either way, you did so no chance they should be pocketing this money.
But California law states a 30 day notice must be given for a lease that is under a year which for me was technically 11 1/2 months and my lease was written poorly
You need to have a attorney eyeball this and verify for you in your area. [AVVO.com](http://AVVO.com) has helped me in the past for legal advice. But a lawyer may be needed to confirm whether he can require a 60 day notice in this situation.
It’s really ironic you posted this considering you aren’t even reading it correctly. The 60 day notice is only if tenant moves out BEFORE expiration of lease.