Posted by Willard on May 28, 1999 at 08:09:47:
In Reply to: Re: Hey guys I'm confused... posted by Mark Smith on May 28, 1999 at 01:12:51:
I'm not a lawyer so sometimes legaleze gets by me. But it still seems like two related people are better off having only one person sign the lease....that way they can have a non-related roommate.
: Will, the Attorney General's handbook is well-written. For some reason, you don't seem to be able to read it correctly.
: Nowhere in Real Property Law §235-f or in the A.G.'s handbook does it say that a tenant is limited to ONE family member. They both say immediate family.
: If one person signs a lease, that tenant can have immediate family and one additional occupant AND the dependent children of the occupant in the apartment.
: If two people sign a lease and both are living in the apartment, they both can have immediate family but no additional occupant. If two people sign a lease and one moves out, the remaining tenant can have immediate family and one additional occupant AND the dependent children of the occupant in the apartment.
: : A couple of days ago we got into a discussion about roommates. According to attorney general one person on lease means one non-family roommate AND one family roommate with kids...But taken litteraly two people on lease can't have either....what gives I would they could at least have one roommates...seems to me related people are better off only having one person sign the lease.....why is this?
: : Is the attorney generals "handbook" poorly written or is it on the money...nothing urgent just curious.
: : Will
Note: Posting is disabled in all archives
Post a Followup