1. Two persons are named on the lease contract.
2. One of the signatures is that of one of the persons named.
3. The second signature bears the name of the second person named, but is not his signature.
4. It is doubtful that person #2 ever produced any documentation proving his identity or age.
5. Applicant #2 provided information on his application and paid $50 Application Processing Fee as did Applicant #1
6. Applicant #2 indicated that he was a full time student.
7. Apparently, none of the information that Applicant #2 provided was verified and it turned out some of it was false.
8. Had the Application been verified - and Applicant #2 disqualified - there never would have been a lease signed.
9. Identification: If a person other than the person named on the lease, signed the lease - should'nt that be noted? If it is not, is it still a binding contract?

If two names appear as lessee and only one signed the lease it is not binding.

Specifically, two persons, each submit an application to rent an apartment. One being a 20-year old student and the other being his 82 year old grandfather. Both pay the $50 Application Processing Fee. According to the Apartment Complex criteria - each must qualify (except for income for students).
The Applications were approved and a lease was written and signed. Three days after he moved into the apartment it became obvious that he was not attending the local junior college as he had said he was.
At issue is the fact that the Apartment Complex didn't so much as attempt to verify anything on the students application and if this information was made available before a lease was signed, there never would have been a lease signed.The grandfather was only helping this kid get an apartment so that he could continue his studies.
When it was discovered that the kid was not attending school, the grandfather pulled the plug - costing him $3300.00 to get out of the lease. Add it all up and rent on a 2 bedroom 2 bath apartment for two months (because you must give 60 days notice of move out, plus re-letting fees), just cost us $4500.00...
Is there not some responsibility on the part of the apartment complex to examine the application and qualify the student based on their own criteria? If they don't follow the rules that they publish - why publish them?
Add to this the fact that the lease was signed just days after the grandfather lost his wife of 54 years, even before the funeral. The lease was cancelled just two days following her funeral. While nobody was making him do anything he didn't want to do - clearly he was under duress. Not an excuse, just a fact.
Can any one suggest where we go from here?

The Grandfather lied to the apartment complex in order to help the Grandson out; the lie was discovered; the lie cost the Grandfather money.

No, the Grandfather has no case against the apartment complex. The apartment complex has a case against the Grandfather.

If the Grandfather is going to claim stress caused him to lie, then he would sue the Grandson who (presumably) caused the stress. The apartment complex did not put any stress on the Grandfather.

So the answer is - the Grandfather can sue the Grandson if the Grandson pressured him into lying.

EDIT: I notice your other thread contains different "facts." Why don't you come back and tell us which thread is true and then "we" can provide a better answer? https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/real-estate-law/valid-lease-if-not-signed-both-parties-named-lease-565422.html#post2752888

I am not going to answer this because it does not accurately state the facts. I've answered here where the other facts are posted. https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/real-estate-law/there-any-performance-expected-implied-submitting-rental-application-565497.html.

Why don't you come back and tell us which story is true?

Shame on you for wasting Ballenger's time.

I've merged both your threads. It appears that you decided to come back and provide a clearer description of the situation. This should have been added to the original thread, not starting a new one.

I agree with Judy. The grandfather was apparently the primary leasee and the complex accepted him as such. If he wanted to help his grandson, he should have just signed as a co-signer or guarantor. He's lucky he got out of the lease with as little cost as he did.