My daughter signed a roommate agreement to rent a room in an apartment agreeing to be the lease holders roommate. The person with whom she signed the lease signed the original lease on the apartment. He charged her a security deposit. This agreement is for 6 months. The lease holder then leased out his room to another party and does not live in the apartment anymore. Does this place the leaseholder in violation of the agreement my daughter signed with him to be his roommate?
My daughter agreed to be HIS roommate and not some other party. She fully expected him to be present. This person has not been around for months.

Why should it? Unless his lease prevents subletting, then he has a right to be an absentee landlord. Even if it doesn't, that gives the leaseholder a problem with their landlord. Your daughter has no standing.

Her lease doesn't specify that that she is living with the landlord does it? It probably states only that she is renting the premises from the landlord.

This all depends on how detailed the agreement your daughter signed was. If the roommates name was specifically noted then it probably does mean he broke the lease but if the name on the lease was not specific then she is probably stuck for six months but I am not understanding is there a problem with the new roommate why does it matter she still has her room so why is there an issue. Does she have to move is he stealing her money. Is she not going to stay because of the new roommate.

The problem is that she gave this roommate a security deposit. She has not seen him in months. She would like him to use this deposit to pay her last months rent. She signed the original agreement to be HIS roommate and not somebody else. He is now living out of state and she is concerned about the whole situation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ggregory

The problem is that she gave this roommate a security deposit. ... She would like him to use this deposit to pay her last months rent.

---

That is NOT what a security deposit is for. A security deposit is to protect the landlord from a tenant leaving damage. While a landlord can often choose to apply the security against last month's rent, that's the landlord's call not the tenant's.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ggregory

She signed the original agreement to be HIS roommate and not somebody else.

---

Did she? She may have signed a lease with the EXPECTATION that she would be his roommate, not someone else's. But unless the lease says that, what she signed was to lease the premises.

What I'm suspecting is that she wanted to be more than a roommate to this guy and he didn't and that's more why she's disappointed.

But be that as it may, the bottomline is she has a lease. She needs to live up to the terms of the lease. When the lease is up (which it should be soon), if she doesn't get her security back, then she takes the appropriate steps against her landlord.

If a person signs a rommate agreement that specifies the names of both parties sharing an apartment, and the original lease holder then sub-lets his apartment to a third party, does the original roommate agreement remain valid?

First please don't start a new thread for what is essentially the same question. I've merged the two threads.

Most likely yes, but we would have to see the exact wording of the lease to judge for sure. Form what you have said, the lease is almost up anyway. So why stir up that issue?