Posted by TenantNet on April 19, 1998 at 18:20:37:
In Reply to: Shady lease revoking posted by Erika on March 31, 1998 at 12:41:05:
This appears complicated. Party C should not have been a sublease. Either
it's B & C together or B with C as roommate. Depends on lease and look
for issue of joint and several liability. C needs to establish tenancy rights,
which C might have. Did owner accept money from C from C's check? If rent
stab and C is determined to be a tenant, the a lease renewal is required.
On the owner occupancy, that is another matter and you may have a
difficult time. I would check with a good tenant lawyer on that one, to
see how to fight it. If C has tenancy rights, you may also be able to
escape the vacancy increase.
: We are loosing our lease is there any recourse?
: I will try to make this brief.
: Party A and Party B took out a two year lease in July of 1996.
: Party A moved out, Party B remained, Party C moved in.
: The lease was drawn up as Party B leasee and Party C as subleasee. (Party C has a signed copy of this with the owners signature.)
: Party B moved out and Party D moved in.
: Party A and B have revoked all rights to security deposit etc. and had the official notarized documentation sent to the owner.
: The owner made an agreement with Party C & D, (we) that when the lease expires it will be redrawn in the appropriate names. This agreement was made when we inquired about the owners intentions for the future. Party C and owner have known each other for over 20 years and this agreement was made in good faith. Under this assumption, we have put substantial time and money in renovating the place that was subpar.
: Over the past few months we have made requests for various repairs that were in neglect. They were all reasonable, and legally valid repairs. The apartment had not received any attention by the owner in the 4 years that Party C had been living in it, so repairs were long over due.
: We received notification that the owner has decided not to renew the lease which expires in July, because owner intends to live in the apartment (Actually, this is quite doubtful, and it is a being used as a legal tactic in order to prevent renewal.)
: This is a rent stabilized building, although the rent we are paying is close to market. (A hair under 4 digits.) It is kept in extremely poor condition and I believe there are many things that are not "to code" such as a front door that doesn't lock and electrical wires running down an air shaft (with plumbing as well.).
: I am wondering if this is a negotiation tactic to get a rent increase, (which we were intending on paying anyway.) Or is it a vendetta, for asking for repairs to be done? We had rodents, the door to our apt had a rotten frame and was not safe in case of burglary, we had no smoke detector until a few months ago, the exterminator never came to the building in over 4 years until we asked for one. Now he comes every other month. We have gotten the repairs, but only after months and months of repeated calls. None of these would have been executed without continuous complaining. Is this a vendetta? All of these were valid complaints?
: What course of action is available to us?
: Your comments would be much appreciated.
Note: Posting is disabled in all archives
Post a Followup