Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AK lawyer

The remaining tenants can always sue the prior roomates under the lease. The only thing the LL has done is to say he won't enforce against the prior roomates. That's his right.

Are you imagining that the LL has to sue?

---

No, the remaining tenants can't sue the prior roommates under the lease if the landlord releases them from the lease. That's why the modification is unconscionable. There are four parties to the lease. Three of the parties are making a modification to that lease without the consent of the fourth and it will have a substantial negative impact on the fourth. I can't see a court enforcing that.

Maybe I misread the original few OP posts but I thought the OP was asking if the LL can take someone off the lease. I did not read that the LL actually had removed either party, which he can not unless all parties were to agree. It was further confuesd by the OP starting several different posts which were later merged.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LisaB4657

No, the remaining tenants can't sue the prior roommates under the lease if the landlord releases them from the lease.

I can't see a court enforcing [the release].

---

...
Can't you see that you are contradicting yourself?

Either

• the lease is still valid (despite the agreement on the part of the LL and the other renters to cancel it); in which case full rental payments are required, or
• it's cancelled; in which case it becomes a month-to-month tenancy at will. And if the tenants cannot pay what the LL wants, he will evict them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AK lawyer

...
Can't you see that you are contradicting yourself?

Either

• the lease is still valid (despite the agreement on the part of the LL and the other renters to cancel it); in which case full rental payments are required, or
• it's cancelled; in which case it becomes a month-to-month tenancy at will. And if the tenants cannot pay what the LL wants, he will evict them.

---

I can't see where I've contradicted myself. All I've said is that it's my opinion that the landlord can't enforce the terms of the lease against the remaining tenant after the landlord has unilaterally modified that lease. I haven't said that the landlord can't enforce his rights under a month-to-month theory. However in order to do so he would have to give the remaining tenant written notice that he has unilaterally terminated that lease and is instituting new conditions effective within thirty days. Good luck to him. Because if the remaining tenant doesn't pay the full amount of rent that the landlord wants then the landlord will have to show a court why he had the right to terminate the original lease with regard to the remaining tenant when that tenant had done nothing to violate the terms of that lease.

Lisa makes a lot more sense here. But to use your logic, if the LL modifies the lease by letting 2 of the three signors out of it then he is breaching the lease and he can't enforce the joint and several clause. So he can't hold the remaining tenant responsible. If he tries to go to court against the remaining tenant (the OP doesn't count here) then I believe a court will not allow the eviction because of the LL's unilateral action.

I think Rockinmommy has a very good point. The OP seems to only know what the other couple has told him. He hasn't tried taking to the property management or going over their heads to the landlord.

But the main issue is that a contract CANNOT be altered unless ALL parties to the contract agree.

I believe his may be the worst case of "talking past each other" that I've ever seen. :p

Some of you are saying that the LL wrongfully "changed the lease" without OP's consent. I agree and disagree. The lease, or contract, isn't changed. It can't be changed without all parties' consent. But LL can agree (with fewer than all of the parties) not to enforce it against some of those parties.

LL can enforce the original lease terms despite the fact that he chose not to enforce them against the "other" lessees.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AK lawyer

I believe his may be the worst case of "talking past each other" that I've ever seen. :p

Some of you are saying that the LL wrongfully "changed the lease" without OP's consent. I agree and disagree. The lease, or contract, isn't changed. It can't be changed without all parties' consent. But LL can agree (with fewer than all of the parties) not to enforce it against some of those parties.

LL can enforce the original lease terms despite the fact that he chose not to enforce them against the "other" lessees.

---

Removing some of the tenants from the lease and not enforcing the lease against those tenants are two completely different things. If the landlord were merely choosing not to enforce the lease against the tenants who are leaving then the remaining tenant would have a claim against those tenants for their share of the rent. But the OP said that the other tenants told them the landlord will remove them from the lease. That was the basis for my previous responses.

And, if the landlord was to selectively enforce the lease the remaining tenant would have a case against the landlord. EITHER way, I do not believe a court would allow the landlord to force the remaining tenant to pay the full rent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScottGem

And, if the landlord was to selectively enforce the lease the remaining tenant would have a case against the landlord. EITHER way, I do not believe a court would allow the landlord to force the remaining tenant to pay the full rent.

---

Scott, if the landlord was to selectively enforce the lease then the remaining tenant would not have a case against the landlord as long as the other tenants had not been removed from the lease. But in that case the remaining tenant would have a case against the other tenants.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LisaB4657

Removing some of the tenants from the lease and not enforcing the lease against those tenants are two completely different things.

---

How are they at all different?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LisaB4657

... But the OP said that the other tenants told them the landlord will remove them from the lease. ...

---

I hardly think "removing" means using a pair of scissors, or a bottle of White-out, to take their name off the physical document. (That, of course, would have no legal effect anyway.)

Another meaning might be re-writing the lease with their names not in it. Again, that wouldn't necessarily make the original lease void.

I hope you understand that "the lease" means more than the physical document. It also means the legal relationship of the parties, memorialized in that document. "Taking their name off of the lease", in the latter sense, cannot be done without either agreement by all parties or judicial declaration.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AK lawyer

How are they at all different?



I hardly think "removing" means using a pair of scissors, or a bottle of White-out, to take their name off of the physical document. (That, of course, would have no legal effect anyway.)

Another meaning might be re-writing the lease with their names not in it. Again, that wouldn't necessarily make the original lease void.

I hope you understand that "the lease" means more than the physical document. It also means the legal relationship of the parties, memorialized in that document. "Taking their name off of the lease", in the latter sense, cannot be done without either agreement by all parties or judicial declaration.

---

Thank you so much for the education in the basics of landlord/tenant law. Apparently my 24 years of practice in that area needed some bolstering. Do you think in the future you might be a little less patronizing?