Co signers want out of lease can we make them keep paying there share of the rent until lease is finshed as we do not wish to move

Are they obligated to stay as we do not wish to move and can the landlord remove them from the lease without our agreement

Can you provide a little more info? The landlord is trying to take themselves off the lease? That would be the same as breaking the lease. Are they selling the property or something?

Tell us where you are & give a little more detail, please.

If you have a written lease you are locked in for that period. If the property sell, etc, the new owner buys the property AND the lease. They have to honor it.

Can you provide a little more info? The landlord is trying to take themselves off the lease? That would be the same as breaking the lease. Are they selling the property or something?

Tell us where you are & give a little more detail, please.

If you have a written lease you are locked in for that period of time. If the property sell, etc, the new owner buys the property AND the lease. They have to honor it.

We moved in with friends and are no longer talking there has been no fights or violence of any kind then all of a suddern there telling us they have seen the property manager and have put the notice in which gives us 3 weeks we don't want to move but can't afford to keep it by ourselves we still have 6 months left on the lease and wish to stay can we make them honour there lease and make them keep paying there share of the rent or do we have to move out and if we do have to move out do we have to keep paying rent here as we could move into a new place next week but then we would be paying 2 lots of rent but mainly would like them to honour there lease as we are new to this town and would be unable to fil there rooms with people we know or trust and can the landlord take there names off the lease without our approval or agreement

Can you provide a little more info? The landlord is trying to take themselves off the lease? That would be the same as breaking the lease. Are they selling the property or something?

Tell us where you are & give a little more detail, please.

If you have a written lease you are locked in for that period of time. If the property sell, etc, the new owner buys the property AND the lease. They have to honor it.

No its not 4 sale the people we live with want out of the lease which we wish to stay do they have to honour the lease and pay the remaining 6 months or do they get to break the lease without our OK can the landlord take there names off it and make us pay the hole rent ?:(

Can you provide a little more info? The landlord is trying to take themselves off the lease? That would be the same as breaking the lease. Are they selling the property or something?

Tell us where you are & give a little more detail, please.

If you have a written lease you are locked in for that period of time. If the property sell, etc, the new owner buys the property AND the lease. They have to honor it.

We are in coffs harbour nsw and we have written lease for 12 months with 6 months remaining we do not wish 2 leave our home but can't afford it by ourselves is the other party liable for there share of the rent if they move out and can the land lord remove the other party without our agreement and approval if so are we required to pay the full rent or just our share

Without capitalization and punctuation, it's very difficult to understand what you are trying to say, but I will try:


Your friends have a lease.
You have an arrangement with these friends that you would pay part of the rent.
The friends gave notice to the lessor (landlord) that they would be moving out, despite having 6 months left on the lease.


Are you co-lessees along with your friends? Do you have any written contract with your friends that you will pay a portion of the lease payments?

You have several posts which should all be merged since this is a different version than some others. If they are are on the lease, not called co-signer, then they can't leave without breaking the lease. If they walk away you must keep paying the entire amount and could/should sue them for their share.

I'm still a little fuzzy on the details of this. So, on the lease, besides the landlord, who all signed it? (How many people? Is it 2 couples, 3 or 4 roommates, what's the make-up of people?) Is it one lease, for the total amount of rent, with everyone's name on it?

From what you've said, here's my answer... everyone who signed that lease can be held liable for the terms of it through it's end date. There's nothing you can do to physically prevent them from moving & there's probably nothing you can do to physically make them pay. BUT, you would have a case against them if they don't uphold their end of the lease and because of that cause you "damages" (cost you money). And the landlord would be in violation of the lease if they make a deal with them on the side letting them out of the lease.

Have you talked to the landlord? If I were in your position I would certainly contact the landlord and inform them of your intention to NOT break the lease, but that your roommates don't share that plan and see where that takes you... If someone keeps me in the loop I'm much better able to help them out and work with them than if I get a big, fat surprise AFTER the fact.

The lease is in whose name ?

Are you on the lease, or merely sub lease from the original people on lease.

Is the landlord letting the other people out of the lease ?

Please with more detail, using periods, paragraphs and some capital letters tell us a more complete idea of who is who, and what is going on

It appears that at least 4 people signed a single lease contract with a landlord.

Implicit in the contract, although probably not explicit, was the agreement between the lessees (people who agreed with the landlord) that they would each pay their share. I expect that OP would have a shot at suing co-lessees for their shares of the rent payments.

The landlord would not have standing to waive this obligation owed the OP by the co-lessees.

The lease is in whose name ?

Are you on the lease, or merley sub lease from the orginal people on lease.

Is the landlord letting the other people out of the lease ?

Please with more detail, using periods, paragraphs and some captial letters tell us a more complete idea of who is who, and what is going on

My girlfriend and another couple are on the lease the other couple wish to leave all 3 have signed the lease saying they would share the rent for 12 months but now they wish to break the lease and my girlfriend and I want them to honour there part and continue to pay there share as we will continue to pay ours even though I'm not on the lease the rent has always been split 4 ways but I am not on the lease

my girlfriend and another couple are on the lease the other couple wish to leave all 3 have signed the lease saying they would share the rent for 12 months but now they wish to break the lease and my girlfriend and i want them to honour there part and continue to pay there share as we will continue to pay ours even tho im not on the lease the rent has always been split 4 ways but i am not on the lease

As I understand it they have spoken to the property manager without us even knowing it and they have agreed to release them from the lease. We do not want them released from the lease we want to stay in our house and wish for them to continue paying there share for the remaining months left on the lease.I know I can't make them stay by forse and don't really care if they go or stay.but are they obligated to continue paying there share of the rent as we would be unable to pay the hole rent by ourselves

They are obligated to (from the situation you described), yes. If they don't you'll have to decide if you're going to come up with their share to keep the landlord happy, and in the mean time take the tenants who have left to small claims court - OR if you can't come up with that amount, then you'll have to see what the landlord will do. I should say YOUR GIRLFRIEND will have to do all of this. I will say again (I am a landlord) that if I were in your (girlfriend's) shoes I would immediately contact the landlord. They need to be notified that you do not want the lease to be changed in any way, that you are aware that it would be a breach of the contract for it to be changed in any way, and that although you want to stay in the property, you can't afford to do so w/out the roommates paying their share. At this point you are assuming that the roommates have talked to the landlord based on what? Their word? They obviously can't be trusted/believed, so why would you take anything they say at face value.

I would also begin documenting all of this in writing. Communicate with the landlord & the other roommates in writing. That will give you as much ammunition as possible should you wind up in court. And, I'm not trying to be rude, but I would recommend using capitalization and punctuation. If you need to have someone proof read for you, do so.

The landlord can't decide to release two people from a lease and then hold the third one responsible for the entire amount of the rent. That would mean that the landlord is changing the terms of the lease without the consent of the remaining tenant. The landlord can continue to hold the remaining tenants responsible for their share of the rent until new tenants are found.

The landlord can't decide to release two people from a lease and then hold the third one responsible for the entire amount of the rent. That would mean that the landlord is changing the terms of the lease without the consent of the remaining tenant. The landlord can continue to hold the remaining tenants responsible for their share of the rent until new tenants are found.

Except that the lease, I am sure, makes each tenant jointly and severally liable for all of the rent. The landlord can pick who to sue. And that's in effect what the landlord has done by letting the other tenants out of the lease.

Except that the lease, I am sure, makes each tenant jointly and severally liable for all of the rent. The landlord can pick and choose who to sue. And that's in effect what the landlord has done by letting the other tenants out of the lease.

I'm sure that the lease does make each tenant jointly and severally liable. And that's what each tenant agreed to when they signed the lease. However each tenant signed that lease knowing that there were other tenants signing as well and each tenant could look to the other tenants for reimbursement if the landlord sued only one of them. But when the landlord unilaterally lets two of the three tenants out of the lease the landlord has changed the conditions of the joint and several liability without the remaining tenant's consent. That's a unilateral modification of the agreement and unenforceable against the remaining tenant.

... That's a unilateral modification of the agreement and unenforceable against the remaining tenant.

I think you would find that it's quite enforceable, in the sense that the LL can expect to either receive the full amount of rent or be allowed to evict the remaining tenants.

I think you would find that it's quite enforceable, in the sense that the LL can expect to either receive the full amount of rent or be allowed to evict the remaining tenants.

I have to disagree. By letting the other tenants out of their obligation under the lease the landlord has vastly increased the remaining tenant's obligation without the remaining tenant's consent and without the remaining tenant having any recourse against the prior roommates. That's a unilateral and unconscionable change to the agreement.

... letting the other tenants out of their obligation ... without the remaining tenant having any recourse against the prior roommates. ...
The remaining tenants can always sue the prior roomates under the lease. The only thing the LL has done is to say he won't enforce against the prior roomates. That's his right.

Are you imagining that the LL has to sue?

The remaining tenants can always sue the prior roomates under the lease. The only thing the LL has done is to say he won't enforce against the prior roomates. That's his right.

Are you imagining that the LL has to sue?

No, the remaining tenants can't sue the prior roommates under the lease if the landlord releases them from the lease. That's why the modification is unconscionable. There are four parties to the lease. Three of the parties are making a modification to that lease without the consent of the fourth and it will have a substantial negative impact on the fourth. I can't see a court enforcing that.

Maybe I misread the original few OP posts but I thought the OP was asking if the LL can take someone off the lease. I did not read that the LL actually had removed either party, which he can not unless all parties were to agree. It was further confuesd by the OP starting several different posts which were later merged.

No, the remaining tenants can't sue the prior roommates under the lease if the landlord releases them from the lease.

I can't see a court enforcing [the release].
...
Can't you see that you are contradicting yourself?

Either

the lease is still valid (despite the agreement on the part of the LL and the other renters to cancel it); in which case full rental payments are required, or
it's cancelled; in which case it becomes a month-to-month tenancy at will. And if the tenants cannot pay what the LL wants, he will evict them.

...
Can't you see that you are contradicting yourself?

Either

the lease is still valid (despite the agreement on the part of the LL and the other renters to cancel it); in which case full rental payments are required, or
it's cancelled; in which case it becomes a month-to-month tenancy at will. And if the tenants cannot pay what the LL wants, he will evict them.


I can't see where I've contradicted myself. All I've said is that it's my opinion that the landlord can't enforce the terms of the lease against the remaining tenant after the landlord has unilaterally modified that lease. I haven't said that the landlord can't enforce his rights under a month-to-month theory. However in order to do so he would have to give the remaining tenant written notice that he has unilaterally terminated that lease and is instituting new conditions effective within thirty days. Good luck to him. Because if the remaining tenant doesn't pay the full amount of rent that the landlord wants then the landlord will have to show a court why he had the right to terminate the original lease with regard to the remaining tenant when that tenant had done nothing to violate the terms of that lease.

Lisa makes a lot more sense here. But to use your logic, if the LL modifies the lease by letting 2 of the three signors out of it then he is breaching the lease and he can't enforce the joint and several clause. So he can't hold the remaining tenant responsible. If he tries to go to court against the remaining tenant (the OP doesn't count here) then I believe a court will not allow the eviction because of the LL's unilateral action.

I think Rockinmommy has a very good point. The OP seems to only know what the other couple has told him. He hasn't tried taking to the property management or going over their heads to the landlord.

But the main issue is that a contract CANNOT be altered unless ALL parties to the contract agree.

I believe his may be the worst case of "talking past each other" that I've ever seen. :p

Some of you are saying that the LL wrongfully "changed the lease" without OP's consent. I agree and disagree. The lease, or contract, isn't changed. It can't be changed without all parties' consent. But LL can agree (with fewer than all of the parties) not to enforce it against some of those parties.

LL can enforce the original lease terms despite the fact that he chose not to enforce them against the "other" lessees.

I believe his may be the worst case of "talking past each other" that I've ever seen. :p

Some of you are saying that the LL wrongfully "changed the lease" without OP's consent. I agree and disagree. The lease, or contract, isn't changed. It can't be changed without all parties' consent. But LL can agree (with fewer than all of the parties) not to enforce it against some of those parties.

LL can enforce the original lease terms despite the fact that he chose not to enforce them against the "other" lessees.

Removing some of the tenants from the lease and not enforcing the lease against those tenants are two completely different things. If the landlord were merely choosing not to enforce the lease against the tenants who are leaving then the remaining tenant would have a claim against those tenants for their share of the rent. But the OP said that the other tenants told them the landlord will remove them from the lease. That was the basis for my previous responses.

And, if the landlord was to selectively enforce the lease the remaining tenant would have a case against the landlord. EITHER way, I do not believe a court would allow the landlord to force the remaining tenant to pay the full rent.

And, if the landlord was to selectively enforce the lease the remaining tenant would have a case against the landlord. EITHER way, I do not believe a court would allow the landlord to force the remaining tenant to pay the full rent.

Scott, if the landlord was to selectively enforce the lease then the remaining tenant would not have a case against the landlord as long as the other tenants had not been removed from the lease. But in that case the remaining tenant would have a case against the other tenants.

Removing some of the tenants from the lease and not enforcing the lease against those tenants are two completely different things.
How are they at all different?


... But the OP said that the other tenants told them the landlord will remove them from the lease. ...

I hardly think "removing" means using a pair of scissors, or a bottle of White-out, to take their name off the physical document. (That, of course, would have no legal effect anyway.)

Another meaning might be re-writing the lease with their names not in it. Again, that wouldn't necessarily make the original lease void.

I hope you understand that "the lease" means more than the physical document. It also means the legal relationship of the parties, memorialized in that document. "Taking their name off of the lease", in the latter sense, cannot be done without either agreement by all parties or judicial declaration.

How are they at all different?



I hardly think "removing" means using a pair of scissors, or a bottle of White-out, to take their name off of the physical document. (That, of course, would have no legal effect anyway.)

Another meaning might be re-writing the lease with their names not in it. Again, that wouldn't necessarily make the original lease void.

I hope you understand that "the lease" means more than the physical document. It also means the legal relationship of the parties, memorialized in that document. "Taking their name off of the lease", in the latter sense, cannot be done without either agreement by all parties or judicial declaration.

Thank you so much for the education in the basics of landlord/tenant law. Apparently my 24 years of practice in that area needed some bolstering. Do you think in the future you might be a little less patronizing?