We are giving our tenant a 60 day notice to terminate the lease, after the check clears for the first 30 days of rent. What should we do if she doesn't pay the second month's rent within the three days grace period?

We anticipate a fair amount of repairs and cleaning to be deducted from the deposit and do NOT want to have to deduct that last month's rent from the deposit.

You are terminating an 'existing' lease... Why, may I ask? Also, what state do you live in? A security deposit is money given to you in case you need to cover any unpaid rent or damages but before I can state too much more, I really need to know the state you live in.

"We anticipate a fair amount of repairs and cleaning..." How can you assume this unless the tenant has a history of keeping an unclean place? And how much of a deposit was given before the tenant moved in? One months' rent?

At least where I am most leases require one party or the other to inform the other party if they do not plan to renew. Is this what you are saying?

We are selling the property. California

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ballengerb1

At least where I am most leases require one party or the other to inform the other party if they do not plan to renew. Is this what you are saying?

---

We we are following California law. We are selling the property and need to prepare it to put it on the market

At least in every state I have lived in, and owned rental property, selling a property is not grounds to terminate the least. Is that clause written into the signed lease?

If there is a signed lease, normally you have to sell the property with the renter living in the house, and the lease transfers to the new owner.

I'm assuming here that the tenant is no longer on a termed lease. A 60 day notice is required in CA when tenancy is more than 2 years. So it would make sense that the lease is now on a month to month basis. Is that the case?

As far as if the tenant decides not to pay the last month, you have very little options. The time it would take to go through a pay or quit eviction will probably longer then the remaining days. So lets say you give the tenant 60 days notice prior to 6/1. by 7/3 they have not paid the July rent. You give them a 3 day pay or quit 0n 7/6. (the first business day). By the end of business on 7/9 no payment. On 7/10 you file for an eviction order. It is unlikely you will get an immediate court date. By the time you get a hearing the judge is likely to say they have to be out by 7/31. The judge can order them to pay but has no leverage to force them to.

Bottom line, when they turn over the keys you have a walk through and a checklist. Take a video of the walk through. Note any damages that are not wear and tear on the video and the checklist. Have the tenant sign off on the checklist (do it on the video). Get immediate estimates for repairs. If the cost exceed the deposit and unpaid rent then send the tenant a bill for the balance giving them 10 days to pay. If they don't, file suit in small claims court for the difference.

Landlords everywhere have often found it financially 'convenient' to offer incentives to tenants when the house is sold out from under them. Far better than having a place destroyed, or refusing to leave, or refusing to pay last month's rent.... many even pay for the movers.

Just wanted to add. Unless the current tenants have really run down the property, it is often easier to sell an occupied home then an empty one. Between the time that an offer is accepted and the closing is often enough time for the tenants to move.

Yes, I agree with Joy and Chuck...

IF something is "stated" in the lease that you can terminate her at any time with x notice, or she is known for not paying her bills or she has been giving major difficulty while residing there... that's one thing.

However, if she's been a good tenant, she is being inundated with a forced move in 60 days b/c you wish to put it on the market. You don't have a buyer but hope to have one.... Business is business. I get it but maybe instead of worrying about the last month rent, you can be a bit more compassionate.

Plus, you can't just assume *unless she's been a bad/hostile tenant* that she will leave the place in disarray, she won't pay her last month and that you will be using all of the deposit to prep the property and put it on the market. Again, there are pieces of the puzzle we don't know but unless you specify that she's been problematic, we can't assume she won't be responsible and that it's OK for you to use the entire deposit if in fact, you owe her a portion back. Also, is she on section-8? That throws a whole different wrench in the problem.

https://www.thelpa.com/lpa/landlord-...-60notice.html

Spicy, you are making an assumption here that is actually not in keeping with the presented facts. From my experience most renters are working without a termed lease. Often a lease is signed for the initial rental period but continued after the end of the initial term on a month to month basis. CA law requires a 60 day notice only when tenancy exceeds 2 years. So the OP's comment that they are following CA law leads me to believe that the tenant has been in place for more than 2 years. And that leads me to the belief that they are currently on a month to month basis.

So I do not believe there is an issue here with forcing a move. The tenant would be aware that they are on a month to month basis. Also, generally a deposit is enough to cover one month. So if there will be repairs in addition to that, the OP's concern is a valid one.

What presented facts? Of course, I'm making an assumption and I alluded to that because there's not a lot of information given.

You, too, are making an assumption on what type of lease currently exists are you not?

I specifically state: "Again, there are pieces of the puzzle we don't know but unless you specify...."

Thanks.

Fact 1-"60 Day notice"
Fact 2-"Following California Law"
Fact 3-CA law requires a 60 day notice only if tenancy greater than 2 years
Fact 4-Most, longer term, tenants are working on a periodic (month to month) lease after the initial lease expires.

So we have 2 presented facts by the OP. We have the fact of CA law and we have the fact of what generally happens with long term leases. All four combine to make me believe (and yes it is an assumption, but based on some factual info)

We are fighting mostly because OP hasn't been very informative.

I have a suggestion since the op has not been back in the past 24 hours we should avoid further posts until our answers are provided.

The OP said lease, it was in the first sentence. They also stated, that they were waiting for the check for the first 30 days to clear, which would indicate, it was a new lease, and they were just paid for the first month rent.

Going by the OP statement, there is a lease, and it is current.

Chuck, good catch. Looking at it that way it would appear to be a new lease. If so, unless there is a early termination clause, the OP will not be able to get the tenant out until the lease expires. Even if he sells the property, the new buyer will have to honor the existing lease.

So dsb, you need to clarify the situation so we can properly advise you.