Hi, I gave a written 72 day notice to vacate my apartment in Fort Worth, TX, and then went to sign a notice to vacate form which had a sentence that stated that the apartment did not have to act in "good faith."
I marked out that part of the form and signed it. The apartment manager then emailed me saying that my lease required me to sign that amendment and that the apartment was rejecting my notice to vacate. The apartment manager offered to meet to discuss it in the email.
I accepted a meeting in my email response and stated I was curious how using unfair bargaining power to pressure me to sign a contract which stated that they did not have to act in good faith was a type of unconscionability according to the Uniform Commercial Code.
Is there any general advice for a situation like mine where the apartment is saying that I am legally bound to sign a document which states that they do not have to act in "good faith?"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beebok

Hi, I gave a written 72 day notice to vacate my apartment in Fort Worth, TX, and then went to sign a notice to vacate form which had a sentence that stated that the apartment did not have to act in "good faith."
I marked out that part of the form and signed it. The apartment manager then emailed me saying that my lease required me to sign that amendment and that the apartment was rejecting my notice to vacate. The apartment manager offered to meet to discuss it in the email.
I accepted a meeting in my email response and stated I was curious how using unfair bargaining power to pressure me to sign a contract which stated that they did not have to act in good faith was a type of unconscionability according to the Uniform Commercial Code.
Is there any general advice for a situation like mine where the apartment is saying that I am legally bound to sign a document which states that they do not have to act in "good faith?"

---

Trying to get cute doesn't win you any arguments.


You don't get to cross out sections of a contract, because THEY write the contract... and if you wish to live there you sign it. Or find someplace else to live.

If you are in a 1 year lease... you don't get to walk out on it before it expires. Expect to be sued... and expect to lose.

You are vacating an apartment with only 72 hours notice and you are concerned that they won't act in good faith? Generally you are required to give 30 DAYS notice. What exactly did that amendment say?

So more info about the circumstances will help us help you.

Scott, 72 days, not hours.

Oops. I know I went back to double check that and I must have misread it twice. OK, I still want to know exactly what the amendment meant.

@ Smoothy: "f you are in a 1 year lease...you don't get to walk out on it before it expires. "

Allow me to clarify that I gave 72 days from the time that my lease is set to expire.

So, my lease is set to expire on Sept 4, and my written notice was given via email 72 days before that time.

Then they wanted me to sign a contract which they referred to as a Notification to Vacate contract and as an amendment to my lease. I don't have that in front of me, so I can't give the specifics right now, but the last sentence stated that they did not have to act in "good faith" to their own obligations.

I crossed out that one sentence, and I signed it, and gave it back to them.

Now they are saying that they are rejecting the form to Notify To Vacate because I would not agree that they are allowed to not act in "good faith" to their side of the deal.

That is a very strange clause. I've never heard of it. So I would like to know exactly what it said before I comment further.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beebok

@ Smoothy: "f you are in a 1 year lease...you don't get to walk out on it before it expires. "

Allow me to clarify that I gave 72 days from the time that my lease is set to expire.

So, my lease is set to expire on Sept 4, and my written notice was given via email 72 days before that time.

Then they wanted me to sign a contract which they referred to as a Notification to Vacate contract and as an amendment to my lease. I don't have that in front of me, so I can't give the specifics right now, but the last sentence stated that they did not have to act in "good faith" to their own obligations.

I crossed out that one sentence, and I signed it, and gave it back to them.

Now they are saying that they are rejecting the form to Notify To Vacate because I would not agree that they are allowed to not act in "good faith" to their side of the deal.

---

You can't cross anything out because you don't have the authority to alter a contract unilaterally.

Thanks for the clarification on when the actual lease expires...

Legally you have to give them 30 days before the end of the lease you will be moving... and assuming no damages you can move and get your security deposit back shortly.

You are aware of the quote... "being unable to see the Forrest for all the trees?"

If you are leaving at the end of the lease... what difference does it make? It doesn't change any state mandated tenant/landlord requirements. In that a contract where you supposedly sign away certain legal rights... will effectively render it void if they ever tried to enforce it.

I slightly disagree with smoothy here. You do have the right to cross out any clauses you don't like. But they have the right to not accept your modifications. Unless you both sign off on any modifications the contract is invalid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScottGem

I slightly disagree with smoothy here. You do have the right to cross out any clauses you don't like. But they have the right to not accept your modifications. Unless you both sign off on any modifications the contract is invalid.

---

We really don't dissagree then... we just used different words to get at fundementally the same thing.

My intent meaning any changes they make renders it scrap paper without the Landlord being on board. And the Landord would have issued any amended documents after being reviewed by their attourney for signing, not let hand altered documents by a tenant be used..

"You do have the right to cross out any clauses you don't like. "
That's how I understand it also. A person does have the legal ability to negotiate the terms of a contract that they enter into.

"But they have the right to not accept your modifications."
I agree with that also.
Both parties need to agree to the terms. I agree with that.
However, the issue that I'm having is that they are saying that if I don't agree to their exact terms (however unfair), then they will reject my required notification to vacate, and they will charge me rent after I vacate as if I gave no notice to vacate.

In other words, despite the fact that I gave a timely written notice to vacate, and I signed the fair part of a contract they wanted me to sign, they are still insisting that I must sign their contract without the ability to negotiate it or else they will keep my deposit and continue to charge me rent after the lease expires through a collection agency that can harm my credit.

So they are pressuring me into signing a contract that states that either I sign it and they don't have to oblige their own requirements, or else they reject my Notification to Vacate and continue to charge me rent beyond the lease expiration.

I feel that no one here has yet understood the circumstance which I am describing.
The responses sound like they believe that I'm trying to impose something on the apartment. It is the other way around: They are trying to impose something on me.
A person should be able to sign a contract without undue duress.

They are saying that despite me giving them a better than 60 day written notice, I must still sign a contract without the ability to negotiate an unfair provision or else they will pursue monetary damages.

Since, as we all agreed, both parties need to agree with the terms, the apartment is saying that I must sign even if I don't agree or else they will take action.

I just picked up a copy of the notice to move out form.

The sentence that I scratched out states:

"I / We release the community, the owner, and any affiliates, from any and all manner of actions, suits, claims, debts, damages, and liabilities related to or resulting from Owner's or Owner's representative's action or failure to act in good accordance with this authorization and release.

Well, that the way it is... they own the unit. This is the forms... alter them and they are so much scrap paper and they aren't accepted. That's how it works... on every legal document out there. You have the right to doodle on it however doing so renders it a useless piece of paper. And thus.. official notice will never have been made.

Nothing in there can supersede legal rights offered to you under the law. Such as you can't sign over your first born child if its quoted in it.

That's a different story than good faith. Basically, they want you indemnify them and basically even if you sign it, it isn't worth anything. It is basic law that you cannot sign away your rights. So, if they are negligent, you can still sue them and if they try to use your signing this to say you can't they will be laughed out of court. Then want you to sign it so you will think you have no rights. Not true. Its just boiler plate their attorneys want even they they know its worthless.

By the way, if anyone is wondering,
The name of the company that owns the apartment complex and which has its name on that form is called:

Colonial Properties Trust

They trade on the New York Stock Exchange as CLP.

According to wikipedia:
Colonial Properties Trust (NYSE: CLP), headquartered in Birmingham, Alabama, is a diversified real estate investment trust (REIT) company.

Here is their homepage:
Colonial Properties Trust

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smoothy

We really don't dissagree then....we just used different words to get at fundementally the same thing.
...

---

If the Chief Justice of SCOTUS can write, in the same opinion, "It Is a tax", and "It isn't a tax", (see yesterday's opinion) using different words to describe the same thing isn't so bad. :)

So AK Lawyer,

Does it seem to you that the sentence in that contract is a type of substantive unconscionability according to the Uniform Commercial Code ?

You are barking up the wrong tree... if you deface a notification form... they don't have to accept it.

If they don't accept it... you haven't provided the notice... if you up and leave without providing the required notice.. you are liable...

This is sounding more like a homework question all the time...

Does your original lease state somewhere that you must sign the landlord's Notice to Vacate form if you choose to move out when your lease ends?

If the lease does not specifically say that then you can give the landlord written notice that you are vacating the property at the end of your current lease term and they cannot just choose not to accept it.

If the lease does require that you sign the landlord's form, and if you try to change the landlord's form and they don't accept it, then you have no choice but to sign the landlord's form the way they want it. Of course no matter what the landlord puts in their form they can't force you to sign away your rights by law. So their attempt to do so is pathetic but unenforceable.

Lisa B,

Thank you for your response.
I appreciate the information from a qualified attorney.

Here is how this issue finally concluded:

The apartment manager had sent me an email which stated, and I quote,
"Thank you for coming in to sign your notice to vacate form this weekend. However, this is an amendmend to your Lease Contract which is a legal binding document. Therefore, it is invalid and cannot be accepted since you marked out a paragraph on it. "

Note that the apartment manager's email to me stated that I was legally bound to sign it, i.e., "legal binding."

After examining the lease contract, I noticed that in the section which requires me to sign other forms, the box next to the Notice To Vacate form was not checked.

I returned to the manager's office and I showed that to her, and she then stated that I was no longer expected to sign it.

So, in summary, they had told me that I was legally bound to sign an unfair document that stated that they were not required to act in "good accordance" to their own obligations.
On examining the lease carefully, it turned out that the box for that form was not checked. When I showed that blank box to the manager, she reversed her statement.
That concludes this problem.
Thank you Lisa B for your assistance.