My daughter just moved into a mult-tenant townhouse near a college campus in Pennsylvania. The lease she signed has (4) tenant names listed on the lease but only (3) tenants actually signed the lease. (1) signed person is not listed as a tenant on the lease, (2) un-signed people are listed as tenants on the lease. (One tenant dropped out of school but did not sign the lease, another tenant found a different person to assume his spot on the lease). The rent is listed as $1,700.00 per month and the lease is listed as a joint and several lease with individual rent responsibility. No where on the lease does it say what portion of the rent is owed by each tenant only that the total rent is $1,700.00 per month. It is assumed (I guess) that each tenant will divide the rent equally or $425.00 each per month. My question is since the one tenant did not sign, is not living there and not paying rent does the responsibility for that tenants portion of the rent revert to the other tenants even though there are (4) names listed on the lease with only (3) signing and individual rent responsibility for each tenant? Is the lease even valid since (4) names are listed but only (3) signed?

If there is individual rent responsibility, then, if the accommodations are designed for 4 each is responsible for 1/4 the monthly rent. Its up to the landlord to deal with vacancies and non payment.

My question is since the one tenant did not sign, is not living there and not paying rent does the responsibility for that tenants portion of the rent revert to the other tenants even though there are (4) names listed on the lease with only (3) signing and individual rent responsibility for each tenant?
Yes. The people who signed the lease are jointly and severally responsible for payment of the full amount of the rent, regardless of how they choose to divide it among themselves.

Is the lease even valid since (4) names are listed but only (3) signed?
Yes, it's valid and enforceable against the people who signed.

To clarify a little more...

It is a joint and several lease with "individual rent responsibility" and states below that "If this is a joint and several lease with individual rent responsibility it means that all the tenants as a group and each of the tenants as an individual are responsible to the landlord for all of the agreements of this lease except for rent payments" I would read that to mean if Tenant "A" does not pay his rent one month then Tenants "B", "C",&"D" are not liable for Tenant "A"'s rent! So with that stated, if only (3) tenants actually sign the lease but (4) tenants are listed on the signed lease is that not considered a vacancy by the 4th tenant and therefore responsibility reverts back to the landlord to either pursue that individual or fill the empty room?

Should the landlord not have accepted the lease or not permitted the other (3) tenants to move in with out a (4th) signature on the lease?

The landlord should also have removed the name of the third tenant on the lease (who is not living there) and replace it with the "new" 3rd person that actually signed the lease and is living there.

To clarify a little more...

It is a joint and several lease with "individual rent responsibility" and states below that "If this is a joint and several lease with individual rent responsibility it means that all the tenants as a group and each of the tenants as an individual are responsible to the landlord for all of the agreements of this lease except for rent payments" I would read that to mean if Tenant "A" does not pay his rent one month then Tenants "B", "C",&"D" are not liable for Tenant "A"'s rent! So with that stated, if only (3) tenants actually sign the lease but (4) tenants are listed on the signed lease is that not considered a vacancy by the 4th tenant and therefore responsibility reverts back to the landlord to either pursue that individual or fill the empty room?
Yes, based on that language that's how I would interpret it.


Should the landlord not have accepted the lease or not permitted the other (3) tenants to move in with out a (4th) signature on the lease?

The landlord should also have removed the name of the third tenant on the lease (who is not living there) and replace it with the "new" 3rd person that actually signed the lease and is living there.
Yes, that's what the landlord should have done. But they didn't. So if your daughter did not sign the lease then she is subletting from the current tenants and is responsible to them for her share of the rent. If your daughter signed the lease then the landlord's mistake is not her problem as long as she continues to pay 1/4 of the total rent amount.

What's the bottom line? Is the landlord demanding the remaining 1/4 share of rent from the other 3 roomates? Or are you just trying to head off any problems?

I would strongly recommend that your daughter and her roomates find a 4th roommate and attempt to get the vacancy filled. Once they have 4 roomates in place I would approach the landlord and request a properly filled out, properly signed lease. Otherwise they run the risk of the LL sticking any old person in there (YUCK!) and if not everyone who lives there has signed the lease the LL could come after people who have signed for the actions of those who haven't signed.

Yes the bottom line is that the landlord is stating that the other (3) tenants are responsible for the entire rent, which I strongly disagree with due the individual rent responsibility clause. She only paid her 1/4 share of the rent this month so I am trying to confirm if the landlord can come back to her for the remaining 1/4 share of the rent or is she free and clear as long as she continues to pay her 1/4 share.

And yes they have been actively trying to find another roommate they all know as opposed to just anyone being thrown in there, but the 4th roommate only dropped out (2) days before the moving in day so they had no choice but to move in without a 4th. It has only been 2 weeks since they moved in.

Everyone who actually lives there right now has signed the lease, but not everyone who signed the lease is listed on the lease as a tenant. So I do not expect any problems from that as it is just a technicality, but that should have been corrected by the landlord before they moved in.

First, according to the wording you typed on here, I agree that the tenants who paid their 1/4 share should be in the clear. Of course I can understand the LL wanting the remaining 1/4 of the rent. Unfortunately for him, that's incredibly foolish wording that he has in his lease.

What I guess I'd worry about most is that even if it turns out that he can't come after the three who are there, he could try to find some other breach of lease to evict them for. If he gets ugly.

The other "case" he might be able to make for himself is that since the 3 people signed the lease, it's between him and the 3 of them. So the rent would be 3rds instead of 4ths. Does the lease specifically state 4ths? Or does it specifically state individual amounts? Does the lease contain any wording about what defines a tenant? The lease I use, for example, defines a tenant as a person who signs the lease. I could list anyone on the lease as a tenant, but if their signature isn't on the back, it's like their name isn't even listed. The more I think about this, if he has the signatures of the 3 people living there, and the lease doesn't specifically state that they are paying the rent in 4ths, then I think it would be expected to split the rent 3 ways. (Or only 2 ways if only 2 of them had moved in, for example.)

Ultimately, I think it would come down to the judge deciding.
But I can tell you that I think it's in everyone's best interest to work it out with him. I can't see him just sitting back and letting them stay there, paying only 3/4ths of the rent. He'll find some way to get them out, or he'll move in whoever he darn pleases.

Have you talked to him yet? Or has he just talked to the roomates?

I know there's a way that you can post images. If you'd care to scan and post the lease I'd be happy to take a harder look at it.

I am not overly concerned that the LL will evict as this unit is part of a very large brand new townhome complex and I do not believe they are sold out so I would think they would rather have (3) tenants in a unit as opposed to it being empty.

The lease makes no mention of individual payment amounts only a rent in the amount of $1,700. It does not define tenant only refers to tenant and tenant(s).

The roommates have told the LL that the one tenant (listed on the lease but did not sign) is not returning to school this semester and they have a vacant room. The LL said there was nothing the LL could do and they would have to pay the full amount of $1,700.

I have not personally spoken with the LL's office manager.

Since this is a national rental corporation they have a blank lease (identical to the one my daughter signed) posted on their website, I have included the link below if you would like to review it. I can detail for you which fields are filled in on her lease as follows:

Name of Tenant: (4) Individuals listed (2) of which are not living in the unit.
Amount of rent: $1,700 payable in monthly installments of $1,700.
Tenant agrees to pay security deposit of $250.
Utility Services: Electricity and water are "X"'ed
Violations oflease: The box marked "This is a joint and several lease with individual rent responsibility" is "X'"ed.
Last page signatures: My daughter was first to sign the lease, two others signed at later times and the fourth never signed. One of the others that signed is not one of the tenants listed under tenant at the top of the lease.

Any thoughts you might have would be greatly appreciated, Thanks!

http://www.apartmentstore.com//files/lease.pdf

Well, after reading the lease, and with everything you've told us, I believe the lease is currently between the landlord and the 3 tenants who have signed the lease. So at this time, in my opinion, I believe each roommate would be responsible for 1/3 of the rent.

Maybe Lisa, or someone else would weigh in differently, but that's how I would interpret it, and how I believe it would hold up in court.

If the 4th roommate had signed and then not shown up, they would definitely be responsible for their 1/4, but since they never signed, they are not a party to the lease, just the 3 who signed are.

With a large management company like that administering things, I believe they WILL attempt to get the tenants out if they don't pay. They may let it slide for a month, but they'll keep an accounting of the amount not paid and take it off the deposit at the end, at the very least.

Just read it.

Rockin is right. If there are only 3 tenants who signed the lease then those 3 tenants have "individual rent responsibility" to pay 1/3 of the rent each. It doesn't matter if there were 4 tenants originally listed. The only thing that matters is how many signed.