 |
I have been in this lease and when I got the lease I asked if they would fix the swimming pool, they said they would and it has been over 9 months of not even looking at it. They keep saying that they will get to it and if I break my lease I will be liable for the existing amount. I'm wondering if I break my lease will I be liable or can I fight it
Are you renting a house with a private pool or renting an apartment in a complex that has a pool? Does you lease specify that a pool comes with the rental?
Quote:
Originally Posted by wealthykimble
A lease is a contract - all of the terms and conditions are contained in the lease. There are no side deals.
What does the lease say about the pool?
I am leasing a house with a pool in back yard and the lease says it comes with a poolQuote:
Originally Posted by ScottGem
Have you compared pricing of similar home without a pool.
What in writing has has been said and given over the pool
Well, I suppose an argument could be made that there is a pool - I'd write a letter (proof of receipt requested) to the landlord, give him/her 30 days to repair the pool OR you are breaking your lease because the pool was a BIG selling point.
If it's not fixed I wouldn't cry wolf, I would leave.
If they sue, they sue, but I think you have a good legal argument.
If the lease states the rental comes with a pool, then get an estimate for fixing the pool. Then send the landlords a copy of the estimate giving them, 10 days to repair otherwise you will have the repairs done and take the cost out of the rental. Or state that since the lease includes a pool if its not fixed in 10 days you will consider them in breach of the lease which will free you to move.
Just that the pool will be opened at a certain date which is 2 months agoQuote:
Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck
"Oklahoma Statutes Citationized
Title 41. Landlord and Tenant
Residential Landlord and Tenant Act
Section 121 - Landlord's Breach of Rental Agreement - Deductions from Rent for Repairs - Failure to Supply Heat, Water or Other Essential Services - Habitability of Dwelling Unit
A. Except as otherwise provided in this act, if there is a material noncompliance by the landlord with the terms of the rental agreement or a noncompliance with any of the provisions of Section 18 of this act which noncompliance materially affects health or safety, the tenant may deliver to the landlord a written notice specifying the acts and omissions constituting the breach and that the rental agreement will terminate upon a date not less than thirty (30) days after receipt of the notice if the breach is not remedied within fourteen (14) days, and thereafter the rental agreement shall so terminate as provided in the notice unless the landlord adequately remedies the breach within the time specified.
B. Except as otherwise provided in this act, if there is a material noncompliance by the landlord with any of the terms of the rental agreement or any of the provisions of Section 18 of this act which noncompliance materially affects health and the breach is remediable by repairs, the reasonable cost of which is less than One Hundred Dollars ($100.00), the tenant may notify the landlord in writing of his intention to correct the condition at the landlord's expense after the expiration of fourteen (14) days. If the landlord fails to comply within said fourteen (14) days, or as promptly as conditions require in the case of an emergency, the tenant may thereafter cause the work to be done in a workmanlike manner and, after submitting to the landlord an itemized statement, deduct from his rent the actual and reasonable cost or the fair and reasonable value of the work, not exceeding the amount specified in this subsection, in which event the rental agreement shall not terminate by reason of that breach.
..."
This statute allows the tenant a procedure to correct at his/ her own expense, but only if the cost of the repairs is less than $100. Otherwise, evidently, the tenant could not take it out of the rent.
Looks like OK law favors the landlord.
It appears so.Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottGem
Another problem, from OP's perspective, is that an unfixed, and therefore presumably useless pool probably doesn't "affect health".
I think subsection (B) can be interpreted in several different ways.
"... if there is a material noncompliance by the landlord with any of the terms of the rental agreement or any of the provisions of Section 18 of this act which noncompliance materially affects health and the breach is remediable by repairs, the reasonable cost of which is less than One Hundred Dollars ($100.00), the tenant may " take it out of the rent.
Does this mean noncompliance with the lease or with Section 18, brings this subsection into play?
Does noncompliance with the lease have to affect health, or does the "affects health" clause only apply to noncompliance with Section 18?
Does the $100 limit apply to noncompliance with Section 18 which noncompliance affects health, or does it also apply to noncompliance with the lease as well?
That's the trouble with careless and therfore ambiguous use of the comma. I imagine, however, that Okalahoma court decisions may have interpreted it.
Yep, I noticed that too. I doubt if the lack of a pool would be considered to affect "health or safety".
So it may come down to the OP gauging the value of the pool to the rental and suing for the difference. This would mean getting the cost of comparable rentals without a pool.
I've read and re-read the law. Me? I'd still send the certified letter and argue material/substantial non-compliance. It might get the landlord off dead center.
"Citationized"
"That's not a real word!" :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by AK lawyer
Oh, it must be. I saw it on AMHD.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:58 PM. |