Posted by Harry on January 25, 2002 at 12:18:53:
In Reply to: question clarification posted by Jen on January 25, 2002 at 08:23:05:
: The core issue seems to be the fact that the managing agent knew full well that not "ONLY PERSONS NAMED ON THIS LEASE" would live there. Shouldn't that make that section void? Or like a no pet clause...openly and notoriously having roommmates for a certain length of time makes them allowed?
: Fact of the matter is, it's a 3BR apt. (the LL doesn't want more people on the lease b/c there's very likely an overcharge case coming and the more people suing her/being entitles to this (probably) RS apt. the worse) so it's either roommates or a family, and this apt. is not safe for children. No one would live here with fewer people b/c for the same money they could get a better 1-2 BR in a better neighborhood.
: Furthermore - not that it really pertains to the question but there are all manner of violations in the building and sketchy details in the apt. (like holes in the wall where electrical sockets were pulled out, a hole through the floor next to a radiator, and a floor that would give you splinters if you walked on it barefoot)
: Anyone know anything about the first question though?
Your landlord can't evict based on the Roommate Law itself, the tenant would have to
be sued for violating the lease. Pets get more leniency than roommates or family members. Significant others can be 'family'.
Furthermore, your landlord may have waived the restriction (if one even exists) by
knowingly renting to you plus two roommates. Especially if landlord or agent ran credit
checks on more than one person. This is true even if there is a no-waiver clause because non=waiver clauses can be waived (yes, there's case-law on this). Actions speak louder than lease clauses.
ps: you're likely to get different answers from different lawyers and/or people (including self-proclaiming experts like the Mafia Man). This is still a hot L&T issue.
Note: Posting is disabled in all archives
Post a Followup