[sandwiches]

I signed a lease that expired on March 31, 2007 that says:

30. Expiration, Tenancy From Month To Month: Upon expiration of the Term of this Lease, but not upon the earlier termination hereof, this Lease shall continue as a tenancy from month to month unless either Landlord or Resident gives written notice to the other at least thirty (30) days prior to the expiration of the Term of the terminating party’s election that such month to month tenancy shall not commence.

I lived in this complex for 5 years, and every time that our lease was set to expire, we would receive a letter in the mail asking us to sign & return a document that said that we were either interested in a new lease, or staying as month-to-month tenants. The month-to-month tenancy has a $500 per month premium (on top of your baseline rent). However, this year we did not receive this "offer letter" and we were told by the rental agent that they were not renewing leases for our building because of a planned refurbishments.

In a later conversation with the 'community manager' I was asked why I hadn't turned in 30-days notice, and I told her that we were told we couldn't stay, so why did I need a letter? She said regardless, it's in my lease that I have to give 30-days notice and I sent her a move-out letter that was received 7 days prior to our move-out. She told me that by not giving 30-days notice, I was automatically a month-to-month tenant and responsible to pay for 23 days of rent at the premium cost. No where in my lease does it say that I would be subject to a cost-increase. It says exactly what is pasted above. That's it.

I plan to fight in small claims court, hoping to retrieve my full deposit, but if not I should at least get the "premium" charge back since I didn't agree to an increase.

Has anyone else had this situation in California?

[froggy7]

Your lease says that it defaults to a month-to-month unless one side gives 30 days notice in writing saying otherwise. You did not give notice, I assume relying on the verbal from the manager. However, according to the lease, that notice from the manager had to be in writing. So you are stuck paying at least the 23 days cost. Now, whether they have to tell you that the rent is going up when you do so, I don't know. You may be able to argue that part. Your best bet might be to go talk to the office and say that you didn't renew based upon the manager's verbal statement, and see if you can get out for a lesser amount than what they are asking for.

[sandwiches]

I have been talking to the manager already and she just keeps giving me the run-around. The problem is that they are a HUGE corporation and so they tend just to push people around and no one fights them. One attorney that I talked to said that he's fighting this same company on behalf of other tenants already and that he'd be glad to help me prep for small claims court just because he hates to see the "little guy" lose all the time.

I am hoping to find someone else who has taken this kind of claim to Small Claims Court and see what their experience has been. I've heard that judges tend to side more with tenants on these types of issues, and since my ex-landlords are literally billionaires (they own 90% of the county and ALL of the apartments in the city where I live) I am hoping for some leniancy. And for the amount in dispute (several thousand dollars) I figure it's worth the $50 to file and time in court to at least try.

Thank you, Froggy, for your help. I know that it's an uphill struggle to fight The Man with a contract, but I have to try.

[froggy7]

All I can say is that, if I were the judge, you'd be on the hook for 23 days rent at the current rental rate. As to the security deposit, did you do any damage? That's a separate issue from the failure to give notice.

[sandwiches]

No, there was no damage to anything. They just priced the 23 days rent to conveniently eat up my entire security deposit. :)