Posted by Mark on July 30, 1997 at 19:50:56:
I was just in a position to take an apt that I loved. Although I felt I could afford the lease, I did not meet the rather unreal requirement of having an income of 48 times the monthly rent. In anticipation of this problem I had asked my uncle if he would act as a guarantor, which he agreed to do. The problem was that the management company would not accept guarantors, so my broker suggested that my uncle simply fill out the lease application as if he was going to be the tenant. The broker also said that at the time of the lease signing a letter would be affixed to the lease stating that I would be the one occupying the apt. This seemed to be a rather circuitous way of guaranteeing the place but it seemed OK to me. My uncle on the other hand was concerned about the legality and his liability. So my question is, Is there a difference in liability between acting as guarantor vs. being the person on the lease itself?
Thanks in advance for any and all responses. Please feel free to email any responses.
Note: Posting is disabled in all archives
Post a Followup