I signed a 1 year lease six months ago (MN) and there are two boxes on the lease. One says to check here if the building was built prior to 1978. The other says to see attached information sheet for additional information. Neither box was checked. The boxes are there in order for the landlord to dislose the potential existence of lead based paint, etc. and apparently it is federal law for landlords to notify tenants when a structure was built prior to 1978 because of the potential existence of lead in the building. Through the public record I now know that the building was built in 1904. This makes me extremely uncomfortable that I was not given this information prior to signing the lease (as I believe is required by federal law) and no longer want to live in the building.

A couple of questions: 1) Can I void this lease and not be stuck with the remaining 6 months rent? Can I get my security deposit back? 2) Do I have any additional recourse? Should I report the landlord to any authorities? 3) I do not know if lead exists in the dwelling. Should I do some tests or have somebody test the building for me?

Thanks!

No, No and No... the second part of the law is that it is applicable if CHILDREN are present in the tenant household.

You can get the HUD/EPA booklet directly from their website AND the applicable requirement for landlords to disclose.

It has been PROVEN that the lead being ingested by children is actually from sources other than paint on the walls since one would have to actually lick or eat the paint over a long period for the lead levels in children to test over the approved limit.

I think you are worried too much here. As Cville correctly points out, this issue came about because of small children ingesting peeling paint over a period. If you are not going to eat the paint or lick the walls, then the lead content shouldn't be of a concern to you.

On the issue of the non-disclosure. Without seeing the actual text of the law, I would go by what Cville is saying. If there were no children moving in, then the landlord may not have had to disclose the age of the building.

I'm just curious though, I have signed previous leases where I was given the disclosure upfront, signed a legal lead disclosure agreement along with the landlord, and given a pamphlet (I'm not too worried about getting the pamphlet). I have read several websites that make reference to the law and none indicate that children need to be present in order for a landlord to offer the information. If I sign a contract that isn't accurate, wouldn't that make it voidable? For example, if I signed over the title to a 1972 car and it said "Check here if this car was built prior to 1978" and it wasn't, it would seem like that contract would be in doubt.

And to address the response that I may be worrying too much, the landlord has not been upfront about multiple issues so I have finally decided to hold him responsible.

Thanks for your responses.

You would not be able to void the lease based only on non-disclosure. You probably would, though, if you were to show that there IS lead-based paint in dangerous condition in the apartment.

PS. I was typing while the others were posting. Good answers, all.

Ahh, so this is only one issue. You should have said that upfront. Really, the more info you give us, the better we can help you. It appears you want out and are looking for an excuse to get out.

Frankly, I still don't think the non-disclosure is sufficient grounds, especially if what CVille said is accurate. Maybe, when combined with other factors it might be.

Yes, the other issues have to do with some verbal agreements that were made prior to signing the lease and for which I probably have very little recourse, even though the eyes in the sky know I was in the right. In addition, minor repairs (leaky faucets, stove burners that do not function--except for one) have come very slowly and I understand that I should make repair requests in writing, etc.

It just seems to me that I was presented with a contract that doesn't have accurate information on it and the additional information could have affected my decision to sign the contract. But maybe I'm just reaching too far...

As a property manager/landlord, for all pre-78 properties, I provide the booklet and disclosure AND have receipt acknowledged in the lease. Since I don't know when/if children will be present at the property, I would rather be safe.

That said, my state , Virginia, has a lead based paint indeminfication for landlords - if they provide the booklet and disclosure, they have a 'get out of jail' card for lead based paint claims. This has basically taken the lead-based paint issue off the table for tenants to use to break their lease AND it has lowered the # of lead based paint inspections done when properties sell.

Once a VA landlord has the knowledge, they must disclose so the easiest way to deal with it is to NOT HAVE the knowledge and therefore not have to deal with it.

I agree that since you had prior knowledge of the lead hazaards, your landlord may well be able to make that argument so you might want to try another issue to try and break your lease over.

Hello oyz:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oyz

But maybe I'm just reaching too far...

---

Maybe you're reaching in the wrong direction.

Many tenants, such as yourself, don't deal with their landlords on an equal footing. I suppose there are lots of reasons for that - predominately among them, is ignorance of law and tenant rights. That, combined with the knowledge,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oyz

that I should make repair requests in writing..

---

but an unwillingness to do so, results in the situation you find yourself in.

I actually think you know what to do. Yes, it takes a little bit of work to manage one's situations.

excon

Thanks for your responses everyone! This has been helpful and now I really want to go to law school!

I think the key like Cvillecpm said is that the information should be presented upfront. I read the law and my interpretation--with my rose colored glasses on-- (as well as my prior experiences with good landlords who disclosed everything) is that landlords of pre-78 simply have to present the potential for lead based paint, etc. They don't have to act on it, just disclose it. I never received the disclosure nor did I sign anything mentioning it BUT I did sign a contract that misrepresents the age of the property.

I am going to politely try a few other things and give the landlord every option to work with me to reach an agreement that works for both of us without mentioning the lead disclosure issue. However, if I'm left with no options then I may consult an attorney and/or test the property for lead.

PS. Does anybody know of an affordable over-the-counter lead test for homeowners/tenants? Thanks

Hi, Yes, if it was only an issue of delayed repairs, then the situation may be different. However, the larger issue has to do with a verbal agreement/discussion we had when I signed the lease. Since the landlord is an associate of a friend (who had decent things to say about them), I didn't think twice about the verbal agreement. Since the lease doesn't cover it and they are unwilling to follow through on our discussion, I have don't have much legal recourse with regards to our discussion and, hence, I am on a legal chatboard discussing lead.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oyz

I have don't have much legal recourse with regards to our discussion and, hence, I am on a legal chatboard discussing lead.

---

Hello again, oyz:

It isn't MY position that you don't have legal recourse. It's yours, and you're acting on it as though it's true. As a consequence, in my view, you've severely weakened your case.

Even if you actually DON'T have "legal" recourse, THEY might not know that. THEY might be amenable to servicing you better, if THEY thought THEY were vulnerable. One way to make them think that, is to ACT as though you absolutely know that they are.

I mean, WRITTEN acting. If you write letters to them, referencing the verbal agreements, and not ask, but demand, in an intimidating way, that THEY do the work promised, you might get some action. A little cc: at the bottom of your letter to some mythical law firm, wouldn't hurt either.

Filing a lawsuit in small claims, wouldn't hurt either. Yes, you may not win, but you'll certainly get their attention.

My objective in all this would be to able to live comfortably in the manner I was promised. Sometimes you have to use a little hyperbole to get what you want.

excon

Thanks, I will follow up on this board in a few days or weeks in case anyone is interested in there result.

The reason why I am pursuing the lead disclosure angle/age of the building angle is because I DO have written recourse via the contract. The contract doesn't disclose the age of the building. I would be betting that my odds are better there than referencing verbal discussions.

I should add that this is my plan "F". I still hope to work it out with the landlord, so hopefully it will not come to this. Thanks!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oyz

A couple of questions: 1) Can I void this lease and not be stuck with the remaining 6 months rent? Can I get my security deposit back? 2) Do I have any additional recourse? Should I report the landlord to any authorities? 3) I do not know if lead exists in the dwelling. Should I do some tests or have somebody test the building for me?

Thanks!

---

Yes, you can void the lease since the landlord misrepresented facts, in violation of federal law. Yes, you should be able to get your security deposit back. Of course, you may have to fight tooth and nail but ultimately right is on your side. As a matter of principle, you probably should report the landlord to the fair housing commission or any other interested agency in your community. You might want to consider holding off on this tactic, however, and keep it as an "ace in the hole" as far as negotiating with your landlord to terminate your lease and get your security deposit back. The idea being that, if your landlord balks and tries to force you to go through the courts, you inform him/her that if (s)he willingly terminates the lease and refunds your security deposit quickly and quietly then you won't go to the housing authorities. If (s)he calls your bluff, then go for it with a vengeance. Certainly a smart landlord would want to avoid getting tangled up with housing authorities concerning environmental hazards, especially if you can prove that (s)he lied to you about the age of the dwelling (hopefully you have a copy of the public records from where you got your information.) As for having the property tested, I'm not sure I'd go to all that time and expense. If it's lead paint you're concerned about you can just observe the condition of the painted surfaces inside the dwelling. If they are intact with no noticeable peeling and cracking then most likely they were painted after 1978 anyway so you wouldn't have anything to worry about. (Not too many paint jobs last 28 years.) If, however, the painted surfaces are peeling and cracking then you could have a problem. That in and of itself doesn't prove that you'd have a lead paint problem as the painting still could have been done post-1978, especially if it was poorly done, but it'd be fuel for your fire nevertheless. Actually, if the building does in fact date back to 1904, then asbestos is probably more of a potential hazard than lead. Lead paint is really only a potential hazard if it is ingested. I'm sure you're not going to eat paint chips. Depending on your age, if you're old enough to recall, this was a major concern back in the mid-1970's, when instances of lead poisoning rose sharply in toddler-aged children. It was discovered that the cause was from eating old paint chips from peeling interior surfaces that were 30-40 years old and a nationwide alert was issued. This is what primarily led to the outlawing of the use of lead in paints after 1978. All things considered, in your situation I'd be much more concerned about asbestos, from inside insulation and exterior siding and roofing. When's the last time the outside of the building was remodeled? Either way, it sounds like you're on solid legal standing.

Thanks s_cianci! I agree that this is strictly my 'ace' card that I don't want to use unless absolutely necessary. I'd still like to work this out with the landlord without having to spend money to have an attorney write a letter, time reporting the landlord, stress about getting the deposit back, etc. I'm not a vindicative person by nature, but when somebody violates my trust and goodwill then I do what is necessary.