PDA

View Full Version : Give a 30 day notice then 4 days later served with a 3 day vacate notice


jasabell07
Jun 15, 2009, 06:44 PM
I was served with a 30 day notice for a termination of Lease on June 9th. By my landlord for late payments. Then on June 15th I was served with a notice to pay or vacate with in 3 days by my landlord. Can he do this? I am not even a month late on this months rent.

N0help4u
Jun 15, 2009, 06:49 PM
What state?

If you do not leave within the amount of time required by your state to leave he then has to take it to the court. Then you will get an eviction notice from the court. When the day the court says you have to be out you have to be out or they will send the Sheriff to escort you out.

Fr_Chuck
Jun 15, 2009, 06:51 PM
Yes, he can, while he should have only done one notice, But the history of late payments can allow him to at least try to evicit using the 30 days. That way you are evicted at 30 days reqardless if you pay or not


The last notice is for current late rent. But as soon as the rent is one day late ( unless your lease allows a grace period) they may start eviction.

I am sitting shaking my hel, "not even a month late" you post this like you think you can be a month late. Many landlords would have you evicted before you ever get 30 days late.

ScottGem
Jun 15, 2009, 06:54 PM
What probably happened is the landlord did his homework and found he can use a 3 day pay or quit rather than the 30 day lease termination. If you are behind even one day, a landlord can use a pay or quit notice. However, if you pay within the 3 days, then he has to start all over again.

N0help4u
Jun 15, 2009, 06:54 PM
From what I understand if you get current then they can no longer proceed with evicting you. So get current asap.

Fr_Chuck
Jun 15, 2009, 07:06 PM
Ahhh, but the 30 day notice if served would or could stll be valid if it was not based on just the current late, but a continued violation of past due.

ScottGem
Jun 15, 2009, 07:18 PM
Ahhh, but the 30 day notice if served would or could stll be valid if it was not based on just the current late, but a continued violation of past due.

I don't believe a landlord can have their cake and eat it to. If they use one method they can't use the other. So, if they file both, the later one cancels the earlier.