[Double0Lester]

Hello,

There is a little bit of history to this question, and I'm not sure what parts are important, so I'll start from the beginning. (This is in California). Rather than try to make a full story I'll just list the important events. It's not as complicated as it looks, please read through. :)

1. May 2006: I moved into an apartment as a sublet to a person I'll call John.
2. August 2006: Eventually I also signed onto the lease, which is month-to-month.
3. November 2006: John signed off the lease and moved out.
4. December 28 2006: I gave a 30 day notice, so 30 days is Jan 28th.
5. January 28 2007: I didn't find a new place I liked in 30 days and extended my notice with the real estate company another 30 days (they were fine with that). So now my 30 day end date is Feb 28th 2007.
6. February 9 2007: John is looking for a place to stay after being out of the country for a while, so I tell him he can move back in and I sign a form to add him back to lease (while he is still out of the country).
7. February 15 2007: I move out.
8. February 21 2007: I give John the keys and he moves back in.
9. February 28 2007: The thirty days expire. John never completes the form I signed earlier for him to take over the lease. The real estate company never contacts me about me not returning the keys to them by the 30 days.
12. March 1 2007: John pays rent for March.
13. March 10 2007: John moves out of the apt and doesn't give a 30 day notice.
14. April 4 2007: John lets me know that the real estate company still thinks I am responsible for paying rent on the apt.
15. April 5 2007: I talk to the real estate company, and they do think I'm still responsible for paying rent. In fact they want a new 30 day notice and another 30 days of rent. I give them a new notice and a check for rent. (Maybe I shouldn't have done that).
16. April 6 2007: The keys have yet to be returned to the real estate company.

So my questions are: Should I cancel that check? Are they trying to make me pay for their mistake?

My impression of the way a 30 day notice works was that after those 30 days I wouldn't ever be responsible for paying any more rent. Is that right? The real estate company is telling me that since I didn't turn in the keys by the 30 days they assume I'm staying and keep me on a month-to-month lease which requires another 30 day notice to terminate.

I knew there was some risk leaving the keys with someone else while I was on the lease, but my impression was that if John wanted to live there past the 30 day notice he was going to have to get himself back on the lease, or somehow my 30 day notice would need to be canceled which would require my signature somewhere. So the risk I thought I was undertaking was that John would run away with the keys and I might have to pay for the lock work, but I didn't think I would end up being asked for more rent.

It sounds shady to me that the real estate company wants more rent. I could imagine some penalty for not returning the keys on time, but what they're telling me doesn't sound right. Maybe I'm wrong though, so I would really appreciate advice.

Thanks!

[LisaB4657]

It looks like the real estate company is right. By not returning the keys you never delivered possession of the apartment back to the real estate company. Since you had been leaving, then staying, then leaving, then someone else staying, they had no reason to think that the apartment had been emptied, particularly since no one returned the keys. The real estate company didn't have any obligation to contact you and say "where's the keys?"

Also, the fact that someone paid rent for March effectively nullified your notice for Feb. 28th. So you would have to give a new 30-day notice now and since we're already into April, that means that you would have to pay April and May rent.