Check out some similar questions!

scri8e · May 20, 2008, 05:56 AM

BTW TAA is Texas Apartment Association. A business not a government org nor a non profit bizz.

JudyKayTee · May 20, 2008, 05:59 AM

Originally Posted by scri8e

What is TAA? Texas Apartment Association? If so that is a private business also not a government org.

I doubt that this is an automatic lease. Automatic leases are rarely used.
They are a contract type of old and not legally binding in many states type.

Actually it's (TAA) a not for profit. Perhaps automatic renewing leases are neither common nor legal in California but pretty common where I am - NYS. On occasion I use them myself. However, the argument is moot because in this case it is very obviously not an automatic lease.

Would be interested in where automatic leases are not binding (it's a legal contract and I wonder just part of the contract cannot be enforced) and why you believe they are "contracts of old."

I also remain interested that your research showed no case law concerning lease renewal and retaliation.

Otherwise if the question is can the tenant sue/make a claim for discrimination you can pretty much claim for anything - it's the winning that is in question.

JudyKayTee · May 20, 2008, 05:59 AM

Originally Posted by scri8e

BTW TAA is Texas Apartment Association. A business not a government org nor a non profit bizz.

Check again - it's a not-for-profit Association, thus the word "Association."

ScottGem · May 20, 2008, 06:00 AM

As far as I know, most leases are self perpetuating. In other words, unless either the landlord or the tenant actively terminates the lease it continues on as a periodic lease with all the same terms expect the rental amount and there is no longer an expiration date. Therefore, a landlord's refusal to renew the lease can be considered a termination.

I don't know if there is any case law to support this. I do understand a landlord cannot be forced to renew a lease (except maybe in cases of legal discrimination). But refusal to renew a lease presents a hardship to the tenant. A hardship that a landlord does not incur in the reverse situation. Therefore it makes sense to compensate a tenant IF, the landlord's refusal to renew is in retaliation for the tenant's exercise of their legal rights.

Originally Posted by JudyKayTee

However, the argument is moot because in this case it is very obviously not an automatic lease.

I'm not so sure it's that obvious. An automatic lease renews if there is no action on the part of either the tenant or landlord. Just because the landlord exercised his right to not renew doesn't mean it wouldn't have renewed automatically if he hadn't

scri8e · May 20, 2008, 06:03 AM

I am a member of 3 associations in CA. They make a profit. You bet.

JudyKayTee · May 20, 2008, 06:08 AM

Originally Posted by scri8e

I am a member of 3 associations in CA. They make a profit. You bet.

TAA is incorporated as a not-for-profit. If you belong to not-for-profits that are making a profit, then report them to the IRS.

JudyKayTee · May 20, 2008, 06:10 AM

Originally Posted by ScottGem

I'm not so sure its that obvious. An automatic lease renews if there is no action on the part of either the tenant or landlord. Just because the landlord exercised his right to not renew doesn't mean it wouldn't have renewed automatically if he hadn't

I was going by the OP's statement that he/she was advised landlord would not be renewing lease - I suppose (in looking back) that could be read either way - automatic or not.

And you are 100% correct about the lease turning into month-to-month if no one does anything.

Other than that - I think this has gone (me included) w-a-a-a-y off topic.

scri8e · May 20, 2008, 06:17 AM

Nope a lease that is not renewed goes to a periodic lease by default.

Tenants and Landlords with a TERM lease. When that term ends they are to sign another or end the agreement. The default to a periodic or for laymen a month to month rental agreement is designed to cover all parties instead of no contract which it technically is when a term lease
By it's term has ended.

I realize that you want to make this fly. The truth is that if this tenant follows your advice she may be found to be guilty of:

§ 92.334. Invalid Complaints and have to pay one months rent plus $500 to the Landlord. Including the Landlords court and Lawyers cost.

Please DO proceed! I would love to get this case on the books.

scri8e · May 20, 2008, 06:21 AM

But the Landlord in this case IS taking action.
The landlord is NOT renewing the lease. Which is their right.

JudyKayTee · May 20, 2008, 06:23 AM

Originally Posted by scri8e

But the Landlord in this case IS taking action.
The landlord is NOT renewing the lease. Which is their right.

I can't tell which post you are answering -

ScottGem · May 20, 2008, 08:33 AM

Originally Posted by scri8e

I realize that you want to make this fly. The truth is that if this tenant follows your advice she may be found to be guilty of:

§ 92.334. Invalid Complaints and have to pay one months rent plus $500 to the Landlord. Including the Landlords court and Lawyers cost.

What I want to do is make sure the tenant is aware of all their options. I don't believe this is an invalid complaint, but didn't and wouldn't advise the OP to take it to court.

The fact of the matter is, if a lease expires without either the landlord or tenant actively not renewing it, then it continues on a periodic basis. Another fact is that a landlord is under no obligation to renew and may terminate at expiration for any reason. Its my belief that a judge would consider retaliation to have occurred if a lease was not renewed after the tenant had made a complaint.