I am in a situation and am in need of some advice. I am currently renting an apartment in
Minneapolis. I am doing an internship which only requires me to live here for 3
Months. I signed a lease with a complex on a month to month basis. I planned to
Move out at the end of April, so on march 1 I went to put in my 60 day vacating
Notice (61 days ahead of my vacating). I was told that I needed to provide 2
Full months vacating notice, and since it was the 1st of march and not the 28th
Of February that I would be required to pay for an additional months rent.

After doing some reading I have not seen any other complex that requires a 2
Month and not 60 day vacating notice. I also read an article of yours that said
Under Minnesota Statute 504B.135 that a tenant on a month to month lease would
Only have to provide a 30 day notice (since I pay rent every 30 days). I understand giving a 60 day notice, and I feel that I gave them enough time (61 days) but because of the short 28 day month I will be charged almost a $1,000 for an apartment I won't be living in.
Before I go in and show this statute to my landlord I was wondering what your advice was.

If that's the law, then that's the law. Be nice about it. Seems like maybe the landlord dident know the statute or just dident care.

But if you have a month to month, in Minnesota, then you only need a 30 day notice. Tell the landlord asap don't put it off.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cdoggy

if thats the law, then thats the law. be nice about it. seems like maybe the landlord dident know the statute or just dident care.

but if you have a month to month, in minnesota, then you only need a 30 day notice. tell the landlord asap dont put it off.

---

Before I had read up and found this, I had tried to submit my notice 61 days before I planned to move out (submitted march 1st). This was her response:

"The Lease states "A written notice to vacate your apartment must be
Received on or before the last day of the month, two full months prior
To move out date." This section of the Lease you signed indicating that
you understand and agreed to the policy.

In the past, we have had residents come in on the 1st of the month to
submit their NTV and I have declined their request. In order to keep in
line with Fair Housing law and treating all residents the same, I must
decline your request.

Because your NTV was submitted on March 1st, I can accept your NTV for
May 31st but not for April 30th."

How does it work if the law says one thing, but a lease says the other. Even if signed is the law still correct regardless of the lease agreement?

I would say they are quoting the lease and the lease very possibly supersedes the law (as long as it doesn't break the law).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cdoggy

if thats the law, then thats the law. be nice about it. seems like maybe the landlord dident know the statute or just dident care.

but if you have a month to month, in minnesota, then you only need a 30 day notice. tell the landlord asap dont put it off.

---

Also, the article for MN law states this:

504B.135 TERMINATING TENANCY AT WILL.

(a) A tenancy at will may be terminated by either party by giving notice in writing. The time of the notice must be at least as long as the interval between the time rent is due or three months, whichever is less.

(b) If a tenant neglects or refuses to pay rent due on a tenancy at will, the landlord may terminate the tenancy by giving the tenant 14 days notice to quit in writing.

I interpret this as I have rent due every 30 days, therefore under the law I need a 30 day notice. Is that correct?

They may be quoting the lease word for word, if it is in violation of a Minnesota statute it is not valid.

Contact the landlord and quote the Minnesota statute, see what happens. The landlord seems to be up to date on what is required, maybe they have more info that you don't have.

Read again what Judy said. The law says; "at LEAST" as long as the rent interval. In my opinion the terms of the lease, if the lease says what they said it says then they are right and within their rights.

There is one caveat here. They can't double dip. So if they rent the unit by May 1, they can't charge you for that month.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScottGem

Read again what Judy said. The terms of the lease supercede the law. If the lease says what they said it says then they are right and within their rights.

There is one caveat here. They can't double dip. So if they rent the unit by May 1, they can't charge you for that month.

---

So if I leave in April and they find a tenant by May 1st I am entitled to a refund for that month, without living there is there a way to find out if the apartment I was in had been rented? Also what keeps them from renting another available unit instead of the one I was in to allow them to collect rent on both apartments?

They are required to make a good faith effort to rent the unit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScottGem

They are required to make a good faith effort to rent the unit.

---

I have one more quick question. At this point I don't have anything to lose by trying to negotiate with them as they added almost $300 a month onto my rent for not signing a year long lease. Is it worth it to present them with this statute and see if they are willing to negotiate it? Also what would be an appropriate way to make middle ground as far as me paying them extra for not giving them the extra day notice and them being able to try and re-rent the apartment?

I also don't know if this makes a difference but when I signed my lease the person who I signed with verbally told me I needed to give 60-days notice, and I made them aware when I tried to sign my vacancy notice with 61 days notice.

You can certainly try to negotiate, but from what you have said I doubt they will.

Doesn't matter what you were told, if the lease is that specific.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AnimalDoctor

I have one more quick question. At this point I dont have anything to lose by trying to negotiate with them as they added almost $300 a month onto my rent for not signing a year long lease. Is it worth it to present them with this statute and see if they are willing to negotiate it? Also what would be an appropriate way to make middle ground as far as me paying them extra for not giving them the extra day notice and them being able to try and re-rent the apartment?

I also dont know if this makes a difference but when I signed my lease the person who i signed with verbally told me i needed to give 60-days notice, and I made them aware when I tried to sign my vacancy notice with 61 days notice.

---

I don't think you read what I wrote - you have a written lease. That lease is controlling your obligations and their obligations. I do not see the lease violating your rights; therefore, the statute does not come into play. You cannot, of course, waive your legal rights but this is a contract.

All the terms of a written lease/contract are contained within the edges of the paper its written on - oral/verbal "sides" are meaningless. If oral assurances were important they should have been added to the written contract. You cannot modify a written document with an oral agreement - in general.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AnimalDoctor

I interpret this as I have rent due every 30 days, therefore under the law I need a 30 day notice. Is that correct?

---

No, you are not correct. What about the months with 31 days? Are you going to argue that your rent would be due the 1st of May and again on the 31st of day instead of the first of June?

Just a quick note:

Minnesota is one of a hand full of states that do NOT require the landlord to mitigate his damages. The law states the landlord SHOULD mitigate damages... but the law does not state that landlords MUST mitigate damages.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LILL

Just a quick note:

Minnesota is one of a hand full of states that do NOT require the landlord to mitigate his damages. The law states the the landlord SHOULD mitigate damages...but the law does not state that landlords MUST mitigate damages.

---

Are you saying that in MN the landlord CAN double dip or are you saying, they don't have to try and re-rent?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScottGem

Are you saying that in MN the landlord CAN double dip or are you saying, they don't have to try and re-rent?

---

No... the law is the same as that of Florida law. The landlord can not double dip, but the landlord is not obligated to find a new tenant to mitigate damages from a tenant who chooses to leave prior the end of the lease term or during a required notice period.

Hmm I thought Florida was the only state that did that. Do you have the statutes?

My understanding of the Florida law was that it specified that a landlord need not make a good faith effort to re-rent. If the wording is that they SHOULD not that they MUST, that makes things different.

If I were a judge and found that a landlord just sat on a lease when the law said they SHOULD try to re-rent, then I would tend to rule for the tenant.

I don't have the exact statute (had it this morning and can't find now)... but this is from the Minnesota Landlord/Tenant Handbook. I will try to find the exact statute when I have more time.

Read the section for "For Definite Term Tenancies"

Landlord-Tenant Handbook: Ending the Tenancy

Technically, I think you have to abide by what the lease says, not what was stated verbally, as the lease is more specific. However, they are being unkind, and if this is a pattern with them, and they have done it before, they have a history of doing this, and they should have made it very clear before tricking you into giving them an extra month to work on the apartment, repaint, etc. on your dollar. If I were you, I would pay the amount you think you owe and move out when you said you would and let them chase you for the money. I am a landlord, honestly, it doesn't make a difference whether you notify them the day before the end of the month, or the day of, it doesn't effect their odds of finding a tenant. Did you tell them when you signed the agreement how long you'd be staying? Do what you think is right and what gives you a clear conscience.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by parkerbenson

technically, i think you have to abide by what the lease says, not what was stated verbally, as the lease is more specific. however, they are being unkind, and if this is a pattern with them, and they have done it before, they have a history of doing this, and they should have made it very clear before tricking you into giving them an extra month to work on the apartment, repaint, etc., on your dollar. if i were you, i would pay the amount you think you owe and move out when you said you would and let them chase you for the money. I am a landlord, honestly, it doesn't make a difference whether you notify them the day before the end of the month, or the day of, it doesn't effect their odds of finding a tenant. Did you tell them when you signed the agreement how long you'd be staying? do what you think is right and what gives you a clear conscience.

---

This post is from March of this year - I'm sure the problem hs been solved.

A verbal agreement CANNOT replace or modify a written agreement - that's contract law.