The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Isn't this Illegal and if so, what is it called?
Kewop Decam
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
Okay, I'm pretty sure this is illegal, but I don't know what it's called.
Lets say you rent an apartment and it is 4 beds/4 baths yourself for $1000 a month. You live in one room, and then you (not the apartment) leases the other 3 rooms for $400 each meaning you get $1200 from 3 other people and only pay the $1000 on the apartment. So you basically pay no rent and you're up $200 every month on a property that isn't yours and leasing a property that isn't yours.
Now, I'm pretty sure that isn't legal, but what would you call that? Double renting?
Lets say you rent an apartment and it is 4 beds/4 baths yourself for $1000 a month. You live in one room, and then you (not the apartment) leases the other 3 rooms for $400 each meaning you get $1200 from 3 other people and only pay the $1000 on the apartment. So you basically pay no rent and you're up $200 every month on a property that isn't yours and leasing a property that isn't yours.
Now, I'm pretty sure that isn't legal, but what would you call that? Double renting?
Kewop Decam on
0
Posts
PSN Hypacia
Xbox HypaciaMinnow
Discord Hypacia#0391
Where can I get a 4BR, 4Bath for $1000 a month....
Christ!
Thanks
the apartment in question is actually 4br/2b for like $740 in Florida.
I'm not the one trying to do it, someone is actually already doing it there and apartment office doesn't know. I wonder what kind of penalty you could get from that if any.
However, if they're good tenants or the owner/management company barely gives a fuck, they could add the additional 3 people to the lease and maybe bump the rent up some if they found out.
Did he write into the lease that subletting was prohibited? Because if not, he can say 'NO!' as loudly as he wants and it probably won't matter. It is a fairly common stipulation in leases though, especially in cheaper places where a tenant would have an easier time offering market-competitive rates while still profiting on the sub-lease.
If it IS prohibited in the lease the most likely recourse is termination of the lease contract, so the landlord can (if he chooses) boot everyone.
Potential profits they lose I guess. Legally unable to come after someone for damages?
Firstly, who are these people? We don't know. What if they burn your apartment down? Are you liable? What if they steal something? Cause damage? We have just you on the lease. You're liable and that's it. So it's bad for you.
Secondly, most landlords do credit checks and background checks (depending on location) to ensure that they're renting to someone who has the means to pay for the apartment. If you have to sublet, why are you doing it? did you lose your job? Are you a drug addict? (this is more common than people think).
Fact is, if you did this, and you didn't look like a complete jerk, always paid your rent on time and never made a fuss, your landlord PROBABLY won't care, but they WILL notice. These are people who's job is to know who what and where on every unit, so when some random dude shows up at the gate, and has a key, and the landlord has never seen this person, and they ask what they're doing there, you're caught in a lie. So think about it before you do it.
Hell, why not buy a house, and rent it to roommates and you can do this legally.
"Oh what a day, what a LOVELY DAY!"
maybe they shouldn't be breaking the law
get mad at the person getting you to do illegal things, not the person who reports you
But subletting isn't illegal.
They're not breaking the law.
Granted I don't know why the OP is doing this, but I imagine they knew the risk when they decided to live in a place without being in the lease.
Violating the terms of a contract isn't a crime. In fact, contract law clearly specifies that breaking a contract is not illegal and there can be no penalties/punishments assigned merely for violating terms of a contract.
And yeah usually land lords hate it.
It can, however, be grounds for civil liability. If the lease explicitly prohibits subletting, doing so without the landlord's consent (in writing and signed, or it might as well have not happened) puts you in direct violation of the lease agreement, allowing the landlord to sue (you, not the sub-lessees) for actual damages, or, more likely, evict you.
Breaking a lease or contract is illegal.
You make the connection.
"Oh what a day, what a LOVELY DAY!"
Breach of contract isn't illegal.
Huhbuhwha? No. Not criminal.
Edit: Ack, Khavall beat me to it.
Well it's a civil issue that can still be considered "illegal" in the sense they can come after you for things like early termination rules.
For clarification: Are you confusing illegal with criminally unlawful? I mean you can use "illegal" in a more liberal sense to denote something against the rules like you could say, "It's illegal to roll a 9 after you roll a 5 in mousetrap" or something.
show me where in the usc or the state code of your choice where the state punishes someone who violates the terms of a contract.
Illegal means forbidden by law. Civil law generally doesn't forbid behavior, but instead gives people recourse if another were to do some deed (ie a tort or etc.) You're welcome to commit as many torts as you want (as long as they also aren't crimes like battery) as long as you are prepared to pay the price to whomever you inflict them upon.
Yeah, there's no "rule" that says, "Thou shalt not breach contracts." Contract law is all about what to do when someone does breach, but there's a reason there's such a thing as an efficient breach. Sometimes it's in your best interest to breach, and the law recognizes that fact. Contracts are, at their heart, voluntary agreements. No one can force you to uphold your end of a voluntary bargain.
Depends on the state. Penalties are unenforceable contract terms, so the lease can't say up-front, "You have to pay $X to break the lease." However, the landlord can sue for damages, which would include the rent you would have paid to him if you had not broken the lease. Most states require the landlord to seek a new tenant, however; they can't just leave the apartment vacant and then sue for unpaid rent. The lease could also include liquidated damages, which basically say, "You agree up front to pay damages equal to $X if you break this lease." How is that different than a penalty? It's one of those mysteries of life.
Efficient breach isn't really a defense to breach of contract. The non-breaching party still has legal recourse against the breaching party. In fact, it's not even really a legal doctrine. It's just a term describing the relatively rare circumstances in which one party breaching would actually leave everybody in a better economic situation than if the contract had been performed.
It's not even universally agreed that there's such a thing as an efficient breach. Of course, this involves debates between several economic and legal schools of thought - not really within the scope of this thread.