---

Posted by TenantNet on October 13, 1997 at 07:08:32:

In Reply to: Interesting Landlord tactic posted by SS on October 08, 1997 at 17:53:31:

: During a dispute w/my landlord about services in the building, he claimed
: he was entitled to raise the rent by 15% because my wife had signed the
: lease in her name alone before we were married. He reasoned that he was
: entitled to a new tenant increase when I moved in, and cited a clause to
: that effect in the lease. I believe that any such clause would be illegal
: since we are now married and my wife may have any family members as occupants
: without their being leaseholders. I'd be interested to know if anyone has
: seen this law upheld in court.

You bought in to his diversions -- the dispute was about services,,
remember? Any spouse has a right to be on the lease. It holds even
if the LL refuses. But even if you were just a roommate, there's no
increase.

Follow Ups:

---

Note: Posting is disabled in all archives
Post a Followup

Name    : 
E-Mail  : 
Subject : 

Comments:
: : During a dispute w/my landlord about services in the building, he claimed
: : he was entitled to raise the rent by 15% because my wife had signed the
: : lease in her name alone before we were married.  He reasoned that he was
: : entitled to a new tenant increase when I moved in, and cited a clause to
: : that effect in the lease.  I believe that any such clause would be illegal
: : since we are now married and my wife may have any family members as occupants
: : without their being leaseholders.  I'd be interested to know if anyone has
: : seen this law upheld in court.

: You bought in to his diversions -- the dispute was about services,,
: remember? Any spouse has a right to be on the lease. It holds even
: if the LL refuses. But even if you were just a roommate, there's no
: increase.



Optional Link URL:  
Link Title:         
Optional Image URL: 

---