[vladdrac]

I'm new. So...

I rented an apartment in Portland, Oregon starting Jan.1, 2006 with a 1 year lease. In May I had the opportunity to work in Japan for 6 months starting in June. I contacted the landlord and explained the situation. I told him I would be moving out and we agreed that I would continue to pay rent until the unit was re-rented. I paid the rent for the month of June and gave them possession back of the unit on June 12th. They had a new lease signed with a new tenant on June 15th.

When I moved in I paid a security deposit equal to one month's rent of $575. Upon leaving, there were misc. cleaning fees of $150, which I agreed to. I received a refund of $137.50. They cited in the details as follows: They were keeping the $575 deposit for my early termination of the lease. They were charging me $150 in misc. cleaning fees, which they subtracted from the $287.50 balance of the June rent I paid from when it was re-rented on June 15th.

There was nothing in my lease that made provisions for any fee for early termination. They claim a section in the Oregon Revised Statutes says they can keep my deposit if I end the lease early. I have looked through it and can't find anything saying this. I did find a section that says a lease is ended by the landlord when they sign a new lease with a new tenant. Since I was still paying rent, I am going with the contention that they ended the lease when they re-rented the unit.

They now have a new tenant with a lease that goes out until next June instead of the end of the year. They had no lapse in rent payment. They now have the equivalent of 2 months rent for the unit for the month of June (the $287.50 I paid for June 1 - 15 and the $287.50 the new tenant paid for June 16 - 30 plus my deposit of $575). They are coming out quit ahead on this deal even though they claimed my "breaking the lease" damaged them.

I plan on taking them to small claims court and want to make sure I have all of my ducks in a row. I do have the accounting details they sent me showing that they re-rented on June 15th. I was concerned they might try and counter claim for other damages in retaliation, but since I have a refund check (which I won't cash until this is resolved in court) and an accounting of what they had to do when I moved out I'm not too worried. If they do, I don't think it will help their credibility with the judge.

Am I out of line here? I did sign a lease and intended to fulfill it. Things happened and I had to get out of it. I made every effort to make sure the landlord did not suffer because of this. I get paid back by them trying to impose a contract where none existed. I am wondering if anyone is familiar with the Oregon Revised Statutes concerning tenant/landlord law. If there is something that I missed that does say I owe it, fine, I have no problem with that. Do I pursue this or am I being unreasonable and should just consider this a $575 lesson?

[valinors_sorrow]

I have taken landlords to court prior to happy home ownership and won every time. Oddly enough, these took place in California and Portland Oregon LOL. You are on the right track staying cool and doing your homework. Be very brief, to the point and business like in court. I would support pursuing small claims for two reasons. It doesn't cost that much and even if the law states the landlord may keep the deposit, the contract you signed should have reflected that detail and the judge may rule in your favour on that basis. I have seen judges rip into property owners for poor lease writing on more than one occasion.

[Fr_Chuck]

While you may have a legal right, he also did not have to let you break the lease, he agreed to break it to be helpful to you. As such he believes he should receive some fair money payment for allowing you out. And honestly I agree, I would normally think that payout to break a lease if there was not a clause to allow you to break it would be fair to the property owner.

Now yes you may well win a court case, but then I doubt if that landlord would let the next person out of their lease early. Had he told you no you can't get out of the lease, where would you have been, Or if he had tool two or three months to lease it, So I think you got a fair deal personally

[CaptainForest]

Fr Chuck, in many states/provinces, the landlord has a duty to mitigate the damages.

That is, to try and re-rent after a tenant breaks it.

If Oregon is one of those places, then the vladdrac has done nothing wrong.

If the landlord wanted to keep something personally, then the landlord should have said it up front.


Vladdrac,

I agree with Val.

You seem to have all your ducks in order and should win your case.

Good luck!

[bhayne]

In Canada, a damage deposit can only be used for damage. It has nothing to do with rent, utilities, etc and it is to be placed in an interest bearing accout. You are also entitled to the accrued interest!

[bhayne]

As a landlord, I would have charged you the full month of June ($575). The people moving in on June 16 would have the month of June rent free (as an incentive to move to help with the damage deposit and to recover moving cost) since the place still needs to be cleaned after your out. I would refund to you $575-$150= $425. It may be easier to negotiate and split the difference (say $212.50) than to take it to court and cause you the stress!

[pag2464]

When in a lease situation it is sometimes tough to get a landlord to hold up their end of the bargain. When you have a lease you do have alternatives. Most states have a rent escrow proposition. In this case you can hold the rent that should be paid and put it into an escrow account where it can accumulate until the landlord takes care of the issues that need to be taken care of. You will need to send letters supporting your requests in the things that need to be done.At least one of those will need to be registered so that you have proof that you have communicated with the landlord.Dealing with a landlord that refuses to take care of things that they have agreed to and have in writing can be at the very least be difficult. It can be done and must be done by following the rules and codes that are required.