30-day notice of intent to vacate was given was given to LL on August 14 indicating apartment would be vacated September 15. LL is now saying that rent for all of September is due (rather than prorated through September 15) and they will refund the balance after move out. I believe that rent is due only through the end of the tenancy - September 15th - is this correct? By the way, no security deposit was charged initially so it seems this is the LL's way of attempting to have money on hand in case repairs are necessary.

Of course you owe for the entire month... you are NOT allowed or owed the right to prorate your final month. The landlord is entitled to the entire months payment. And can sue you for it if you don't make it.

Where did you get the idea you could pro-rate it from?

EDIT: and it seems from the rather RUDE and completely incorrect "not helppful" the OP doesn't care about the law they only want someone to agree with them.

Apparently they can't read too well.

Most state laws require that you give notice of one full pay period rather than just 30 days. That means that if rent is due on the 1st then notice must be given just prior to the 1st. However some states, such as California, allow you to give 30 days notice at any time. Let us know your location and we can look it up for you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smoothy

Of course you owe for the entire month...you are NOT allowed or owed the right to prorate your final month. The landlord is entitled to the entire months payment. And can sue you for it if you don't make it.

Where did you get the idea you could pro-rate it from?

---

CA Dept of Consumer Affairs Tenant Handbook excerpted here:

"You can give the landlord notice any time during the rental period, but you must pay full rent during the period covered by the notice. For example, say you have a month-to-month rental agreement, and pay rent on the first day of each month. You could give notice any time during the month (for example, on the tenth). Then, you could leave 30 days later (on the tenth of the following month, or earlier if you chose to). But you would have to pay rent for the first 10 days of the next month whether you stay for those 10 days or move earlier."

CA Civil Code Section 1946 - excerpted here: "...AS TO TENANCIES FROM MONTH TO MONTH EITHER OF THE PARTIES MAY TERMINATE THE SAME BY GIVING AT LEAST 30 DAYS' WRITTEN NOTICE THEREOF AT ANY TIME AND THE RENT SHALL BE DUE AND PAYABLE TO AND INCLUDING THE DATE OF TERMINATION..."

Doesn't say one pays for the balance of the month after the unit has been vacated. Why would I be obligated to pay for the full month - the obligation is to pay for the tenancy only through the end of the 30-day notice period. Where did YOU get the idea that I owe the landlord for days following the termination of my tenancy!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LisaB4657

Most state laws require that you give notice of one full pay period rather than just 30 days. That means that if rent is due on the 1st then notice must be given just prior to the 1st. However some states, such as California, allow you to give 30 days notice at any time. Let us know your location and we can look it up for you.

---

Thank you Lisa. This is in San Diego, CA.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by emn3

CA Dept of Consumer Affairs Tenant Handbook excerpted here:

"You can give the landlord notice any time during the rental period, but you must pay full rent during the period covered by the notice. For example, say you have a month-to-month rental agreement, and pay rent on the first day of each month. You could give notice any time during the month (for example, on the tenth). Then, you could leave 30 days later (on the tenth of the following month, or earlier if you chose to). But you would have to pay rent for the first 10 days of the next month whether you stay for those 10 days or move earlier."

CA Civil Code Section 1946 - excerpted here: "...AS TO TENANCIES FROM MONTH TO MONTH EITHER OF THE PARTIES MAY TERMINATE THE SAME BY GIVING AT LEAST 30 DAYS' WRITTEN NOTICE THEREOF AT ANY TIME AND THE RENT SHALL BE DUE AND PAYABLE TO AND INCLUDING THE DATE OF TERMINATION..."

Doesn't say one pays for the balance of the month after the unit has been vacated. Why would I be obligated to pay for the full month - the obligation is to pay for the tenancy only through the end of the 30-day notice period. Where did YOU get the idea that I owe the landlord for days following the termination of my tenancy!?

---

Doesn't HAVE to say that... rent is due in 30 day increments... there is no exception to that in that code.

You can leave any time in that month... you still owe the rent for the entire month.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by emn3

Thank you Lisa. This is in San Diego, CA.

---

Are you on a month-to-month tenancy?

Was there ever a written lease?

If you are on a month-to-month tenancy and there was no written lease then you can give 30 days notice at any time and you will be responsible for rent for only those 30 days.

If you had a written lease in the past, and that written lease contained any language about when and how much notice had to be given, then that lease still controls your tenancy even though the lease expired.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LisaB4657

Are you on a month-to-month tenancy?

Was there ever a written lease?

If you are on a month-to-month tenancy and there was no written lease then you can give 30 days notice at any time and you will be responsible for rent for only those 30 days.

If you had a written lease in the past, and that written lease contained any language about when and how much notice had to be given, then that lease still controls your tenancy even though the lease expired.

---

Thank you, Lisa, for your helpful response.

It is month-to-month. The agreement states that upon serving the 30-day notice to vacate, rent is payable through the last day of tenancy. That alone is enough to inform me that they shouldn't be charging for the remainder of the month after the unit has been vacated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by emn3

... The agreement states that upon serving the 30-day notice to vacate, rent is payable through the last day of tenancy. That alone is enough to inform me that they shouldn't be charging for the remainder of the month after the unit has been vacated.

---

Ok, so you are saying that there was a lease. How did the lease define the period of tenancy? From the 1st of each month, or from some other date during the month? When were you regularly expected to make monthly payments? That would define what the tenancy period was (from the 1st of every month, from the 15th, or whatever).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by emn3

Darling, it seems reading comprehension is something you have yet to master. ....

---

Indeed reading comprehension is a two-way street. If you fail to compose a coherent sentence, don't expect your reader to be able to guess at what you mean to write.

[QUOTE=emn3 - Darling, it seems reading comprehension is something you have yet to master. ....[/QUOTE]


Another good reason to always quote.

There's no lease but there IS an agreement - ?

Well, maybe OP can't figure out how to explain the problem but he/she sure caught onto reddies quickly!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JudyKayTee

Another good reason to always quote.

There's no lease but there IS an agreement - ?

Well, maybe OP can't figure out how to explain the problem but he/she sure caught onto reddies quickly!

---

Well most of their comments were rather rude and were deleted. As a result. They want an answer that backs up their belief and not the law as practiced, and enforced.

You claim that there's an agreement, you claim that the law is on your side, but when actual legal experts tell you differently, or ask for clarification, you become rude.

I have to ask, why are you here? Do you want to be told that you're right, or do you want the actual facts? If you want someone to pat your back and tell you that you're right, then call your friends and complain to them. If you want the facts then sit back and listen to what the legal experts on this site are telling you.

I should let you know that we're not paid to answer questions here. Continue with your rude behavior and you won't get any answers.

Don't bother giving me a reddie for this post, nothing I said was factually incorrect (the criteria for giving a disagree).

Follow the rules, be polite, answer the questions asked so that the experts can give you an accurate answer, and then decide which advice you want to follow, or keep doing what you're doing and become a pariah on this site.

A very similar question to this one appeared on another site. An answer was provided by Peter David Brazil, an attorney in California. Here is his response:

"The applicable statue has been accurately cited as California Civil Code § 1946. The specific part of § 1946 that governs this specific question is as follows:

"as to tenancies from month to month either of the parties may terminate the same by giving at least 30 days' written notice thereof at any time and the rent shall be due and payable to and including the date of termination."

Note that this passage contemplates rent being "due and payable to and including the date of termination". Additionally, § 1946 does not state that the notice has to be given on the 1st of the month or 30 days prior to the end of the month. While some in this thread have cited the sound contract theory, that a month-to-month tenancy is essentially a "mini lease" that is renewed at the start of each month, 1946 appears to preempt this notion statutorily. There is no California case law, that I am aware of, that attempts to interpret § 1946 in the context of the renewable month-to-month tenancy (i.e., "mini lease") or attempts to hold that any notice that does not complete its 30 day period before the start of a new "mini lease" period obligates the tenant for the remainder of the month. Additionally, if this were so then the tenant would have the right to possession for the remainder of the month, since he paid for it, in contradiction of the 30 day notice. Additionally, acceptance of any funds representing rent outside the 30 day notice period acts as a cancellation of the 30 Day notice and requires the parties to re-notice the other party in order to avoid reoccurring monthly obligation (i.e., "mini lease")

The following is the complete language to § 1946

§ 1946. Notice required to terminate tenancy

A hiring of real property, for a term not specified by the parties, is deemed to be renewed as stated in Section 1945, at the end of the term implied by law unless one of the parties gives written notice to the other of his intention to terminate the same, at least as long before the expiration thereof as the term of the hiring itself, not exceeding 30 days; provided, however, that as to tenancies from month to month either of the parties may terminate the same by giving at least 30 days' written notice thereof at any time and the rent shall be due and payable to and including the date of termination. It shall be competent for the parties to provide by an agreement at the time such tenancy is created that a notice of the intention to terminate the same may be given at any time not less than seven days before the expiration of the term thereof. The notice herein required shall be given in the manner prescribed in Section 1162 of the Code of Civil Procedure or by sending a copy by certified or registered mail addressed to the other party. In addition, the lessee may give such notice by sending a copy by certified or registered mail addressed to the agent of the lessor to whom the lessee has paid the rent for the month prior to the date of such notice or by delivering a copy to the agent personally. "

So, according to this California attorney, the answer to the OP's question here is not "No", as Smoothy and possibly JudyKayTee would say, and not "Yes", as I said earlier, but rather "Maybe".

And by the time they took time off work and had to pay court costs fees etc if the Landlord took them to court... it would have been cheaper to have just paid it up front without arguing it. Even if they won they lost, if they lose it costs them a LOT more.