COMMUNITY REAL ESTATE SERVICES
169 LEISURE WAY
VACAVILLE,  CA  95687-3417  |  view map
(707) 689-0717

L12-03001 kelkris ssociates, inc., 
phu q. chu, et al (phu phu) 2486 hill view lane., pinole ca 94564

hoa
1208  willow oak court
pinole ca 94564

hoa realty companyforward to
169 leisure way vacaville

169 LEISURE WAY
VACAVILLE,  CA  95687-3417  
(707) 689-0717

Terry a duree esq sbn 61008
622 jackson's street, fairfield ca 94533

920 mellus street, martinex 9253134200

Q: Our lease included a clause in which we agreed to a separation fee of two months’ rent, after 60 days’ notice, if we moved out early. We bought a house in October, gave notice (and paid rent) on Nov. 1, and moved on Nov. 15. The landlord re-rented the apartment almost immediately, with a new tenant set to move in on Jan. 10. While we’re certainly prepared to pay rent through Jan. 10, we bristle at the thought that the landlord will be collecting double rent for the period of Jan. 10 to March 1 (when our separation fee runs out). Is this legal? –Alex H.

A: In most states, landlords are required to "mitigate damages" when tenants break a lease with no legal justification. This means that they must make reasonable efforts to re-rent the unit, and once they find a new tenant, the original tenant’s responsibility for the balance of the rent ends.

The majority of these states have announced their rule in a statute, which may include a statement advising landlords and tenants that any attempt to contract away this duty will not be enforced by the courts. You can see why legislators would add this protection: It hardly does a tenant any good if a landlord can present the tenant with a lease that waives an important right the legislature sought to establish, especially because landlords are so often in the driver’s seat when negotiating leases and rental agreements. The contract you signed requires that you pay four months’ rent after giving notice, regardless of the landlord’s success in finding a new tenant.

In some states, however, including New Jersey, Ohio and Utah, the mitigation rule is a common law rule: one that is contained in a court opinion, fashioned by judges after they have studied their state’s historical treatment of the issue. These states are less likely to have a companion "you can’t waive this" rule, because unless the question of waiver was part of the case, a court will usually not go out of its way to pass judgment on issues not before it. When courts reach the waiver issue, they may invalidate the waiver on the grounds that depriving a tenant of the benefit of the mitigation requirement is against public policy.

Let’s assume for now that you’re in the latter category: You’ve got the protection of the mitigation rule, but no clear legislative or judicial prohibition against waiving it. You may be in for some creative lawyering — calling upon your state’s consumer protection laws, for example — to invalidate this contract. You might find some help in similar cases. You may learn, for example, that a court in your state has ruled that waiver is not allowable in a commercial leasing context.

By extension, the same rule ought to apply to residential leases, you’d argue. In fact, you can make a pretty strong case for extension, pointing out that residential tenants are likely to have less opportunity to negotiate their leases and get such a clause taken out. When parties to a contract (including a lease) have no meaningful way to negotiate its terms, the contract becomes one of "adhesion," which many courts are loath to enforce.

One way to impress upon your judge the inadvisability of allowing landlords to avoid the mitigation rule by contract would be to point to Florida, which also has a mitigation rule. Several years ago, Florida passed legislation allowing landlords and tenants to agree to a lease-breaking fee of two months’ rent, but only when the issue has been clearly presented to the applicant as an option that can be declined without fear of being rejected on that basis. You might argue that if landlords in your state are to be allowed to sidestep the mitigation rule, that ability should be decided by legislators who can build in safeguards to protect tenants who don’t want to waive their rights

1, people notice pregancy will go to paternal grandparent country side house to give birth by why other people file complaint to authority if no way to discover for any 2 month pregancy woman? why people do that for no reason of obstructing their own rights! sad reality, right ?
2, whenever age difference happen in marriage, then obvious questioning normally occur even between parties but when will this questioning happen ? first date of rendez-vous or years afterward?
3, are two entries of the premise allow people to stay together with or without notice ? or new place of a newly wedded or unfiled marriage ?
4, more u focus on detai

why going to LA? going to verify office?
what should be saying ?

it is so important to PREPARE before deed, because it prevent sudden instinctive unpreparedness
like
goal: asking what question if we see him