My sister moved into an apartment and shortly after moving in she realized the complex was full of convicts, rapists, drug dealers, and felons. She made several complaints with the landlord regarding the felonious activity and finally the landlord gave her verbal permission to move. She was more than willing to move, and immediately inquired about the remainder of the lease and the security deposit. She was told by the landlord that under the circumstances he was going to wave all costs and fees associated with moving. She relied on his verbal promise and moved. She sent notice of a forwarding address in which to send the security deposit however the landlord sent a notice back stating that he was keeping the security deposit and charging her $1100 for lease cancellation. She informed him he was in violation of the verbal agreement and she requested her security deposit back within 30 days. Approximately 4 weeks later the landlord’s attorney sent her a notice stating that they were willing to drop the $1100 fee if she would be willing to let them keep the security deposit which was $500. This was not acceptable so she filed a small claims case the same day.

Does anyone know if verbal agreements are binding in situations like this?

Sure... if the other side admits to it. What's going to happen in small claims court (most likely) is that she will say that they had a verbal agreement, and they will say "no we didn't". In which case the written agreement will stand, and I bet that it says that they get 1100 and get to keep her security deposit. Keep in mind that the leasing office has no obligation to let your sister out of the lease, so she should be grateful for any break that they give her. It was your sister's responsibility to check out the kind of people living at the apartment before she signed the lease.

She has a letter where the landlord admits giving her permission to move. So is that proof enough that the conversation really did take place and is it confirmation to the verbal agreement? Also, she said the lease only states that the landlord can keep the deposit if the premises are damaged or if she is behind on utilities or rent. The premises were not damaged and her rent was current and all utlities were on time.

Does it state in the letter that the landlord released her from having to pay anything to move? If not, then the letter is proof that she can leave. But in general, if you decide to break a lease, you are looking at a month's worth of rent for failure to give 30-day notice, and legally the landlord can charge you to cover his damages, which would include rent until someone else rents the unit, advertising fees, etc. Sometimes there is a buy-out clause in the lease that says that you will have to pay X instead.

So, if she takes this to small claims court over her $500 deposit, the landlord is probably going to counterclaim for the $1100 lease termination fee and ask to keep the $500 for failure to give adequate notice. Keep in mind that she is breaking her lease, and the law says that she has to make the landlord whole when she does so. If the letter is silent about costs, then court will look to the lease to see what it says, and if that is silent, will give the landlord what it thinks is fair.

Look... at the end of the day, your sister made some very bad decisions here. If the landlord is really going to let her out of the lease and only keep the $500 security deposit, your sister should accept that offer and chalk this up to a learning experience.

Froggy,

Thank you kindly for taking the time to respond.

She has court today, and no, she did not get a counterclaim for the $1100. I will be sure to post back later with what happened today.

Thanks again.

This is going to be close, but since she has some documented evidence that the landlord was allowing her to move, I think she will win. Let us know.

Surprise, surprise. Funny how things work.

I was rather concerned this morning after reading the feedback. I decided to accompany my sister for moral support. I must say that I was rather shocked and astonished when the defendant arrived accompanied by his attorney.

Now, it doesn't take a wiz bang to know that you can't bring an attorney to a small claims lawsuit… I've seen Judge Judy before. I told my sister to immediately go over there and ask the defendant why he brought an attorney with him, when in fact she was forced to waive her right to an attorney. Well, there was quite a debate over this, and I ended up getting heatedly involved in the discussion. The letter was what sealed their fate... she had it in writing... good insight Scott. The attorney just came right out asked if he wrote a check for $500 and dropped the claim for the $1100 would she be satisfied. Of course the answer was yes. Who would have thought that she would have received her Judgment without even going before the Judge? The case wasn't even tried. The debate turned out to be over the attorney's presence and the fact that the court allowed it.

What I have learned from this… never bring an attorney to a small claims lawsuit.

If not for the inspiration from the members of this board, which compelled me to accompany her, things could have turned out entirely different.

Thanks all!