Leases and Legality... *tears hair out*

[†Seer†]

I turn to you all! Have spent the day looking up lease info and can't find what I need.

4 friends and I were going to get a place together because we're sick of the dorms, so we apply, got it, only prob is I can't get a co-signer. Sooo they won't accept my application (the realty company). One of my friends mentioned just living there/paying rent, only thing is I wouldn't technically be liable for damages and whatnot.

Sounds great but the only problem for me is the legality of it...
If I do live there, is that a) considered a breach of lease, b)even legal, and c)What are the consequences of getting found out if it isn't legal?

I figured I could ask the company buut then if is not legal but there's no real consequences, waste of a question ;)

Thanks in advance guys, realy appreciate the help.

[BlackStaticWolf]

I turn to you all! Have spent the day looking up lease info and can't find what I need.

4 friends and I were going to get a place together because we're sick of the dorms, so we apply, got it, only prob is I can't get a co-signer. Sooo they won't accept my application (the realty company). One of my friends mentioned just living there/paying rent, only thing is I wouldn't technically be liable for damages and whatnot.

Sounds great but the only problem for me is the legality of it...
If I do live there, is that a) considered a breach of lease, b)even legal, and c)What are the consequences of getting found out if it isn't legal?

I figured I could ask the company buut then if is not legal but there's no real consequences, waste of a question ;)

Thanks in advance guys, realy appreciate the help.

As a preliminary matter, I'm a law student and have not yet set for the bar exam in any state. As such, I am not qualified to give final legal advice and anything I say on this matter should be taken as personal and not legal advice. Savvy?

In general, leases have boilerplate that prohibit tenants from allowing people to either sub-let without permission or allow people who aren't on the lease to live there.

Under those circumstances, YOU would have no legal right to be there and could be treated as a trespasser and could be evicted at any time. Depending on the provisions in the lease, your friends who ARE on the lease could possibly end up evicted themselves.

In short... it is not legal for you live there after the landlord has refused to accept you as a tenant and if you do so, you'll be doing it at your own very extreme risk. In all likelihood, the landlord WILL find out that you're living their and at the minimum, you WILL be evicted.

If you can't get a co-signer, you're SoL for that place.

[Catskin]

Yeah, in my understanding it all depends on the lease. Just some things you might get clear:

Is the lease for x # of people? In other words, in my case my lease is a contract between 3 different people and the landlord. So if one of my rmmates leaves, I won't be responsible. I've had leases though where just 1 person was responsible for the whole thing, the rest of us weren't on the lease. But the landlord accepted us living there and took our checks. We just weren't ultimately responsible. Point is, what kind of arrangement does the landlord want?

Also, what does the lease say about guests? If your friends are cool with you living and paying off-lease, before you do so I'd check to see what their leases say about it. For example, my current lease says that we can't have a guest for more than a week without telling the landlord.

You've probably already thought of this, but if your 3 friends have co-signers or are OK for the lease, could one of them co-sign for you? Rent 2 rooms? Talk their co-signers into co-signing for you too?

Good luck!

[†Seer†]

*nods* Thanks guys :) Will check the lease and see how it goes.

[Don Julio Anejo]

Although I'm in Canada and we have different laws here (they actually favour the tenant quite a lot), one thing should still apply in your case:

If you rent a house to yourselves or something else like that, where landlord only comes up to fix the stove and whatnot, chances are no one will care who's living where as long as you pay your rent and don't burn the place down.

If it's an apartment/townhouse/whatnot, chances of "guests" getting evicted increase as noise levels increase. If you just sit there and play XBOX all day, there's no noise, everyone is happy. If you have a kegger every night, it makes you much more likely to get evicted (actually it increases the chances of anyone living there getting kicked out).

[BlackStaticWolf]

Although I'm in Canada and we have different laws here (they actually favour the tenant quite a lot), one thing should still apply in your case:

Actually, landlord/tenant law in both the US and Canada are very similar. They're both derived primarily from English common law, so it's unsurprising.

In both... a person who isn't on the lease generally isn't a tenant: he's a trespasser.

[Don Julio Anejo]

Technically he's only a trespasser if the person living there doesn't want him at the house/apartment (unless it's specifically mentioned in the lease). The landlord has no right to forbid the person to come there. In Canada (or at least BC) he also can't evict people living there who didn't sign a lease without kicking EVERYONE out of the apartment (and even then he has to give a 30 day notice and state a valid reason, just because he doesn't like other people living there is not a valid reason unless mentioned in the lease).

That's the big difference. When I lived in the US I heard of a lot more people getting kicked out because the landlord didn't want them there.

Although I'm not a lawyer so I'm only talking based on experience and not actual code.

[unstattedCommoner]

As a preliminary matter, I'm a law student and have not yet set for the bar exam in any state. As such, I am not qualified to give final legal advice and anything I say on this matter should be taken as personal and not legal advice. Savvy?

Ditto.

4 friends and I were going to get a place together because we're sick of the dorms, so we apply, got it, only prob is I can't get a co-signer. Sooo they won't accept my application (the realty company).

What exactly do you need a co-signer for? I'm also somewhat confused since the first sentence suggests your application was successful, and the second suggests otherwise.

Technically he's only a trespasser if the person living there doesn't want him at the house/apartment (unless it's specifically mentioned in the lease). The landlord has no right to forbid the person to come there.

I concur. I believe there's a term in my licence to occupy that no visitor shall stay for more than two nights in any seven, but that's entirely reasonable given the nature of the premises (shared house; bedrooms rented separately) and the fact that it's a licence and not a lease.

In Canada (or at least BC) he also can't evict people living there who didn't sign a lease without kicking EVERYONE out of the apartment (and even then he has to give a 30 day notice and state a valid reason, just because he doesn't like other people living there is not a valid reason unless mentioned in the lease).

Indeed. His only remedy would be to determine the lease for breach of covenant and recover possession from the tenant. At that point, the tenant's licencees would become trespassers.

Actually, landlord/tenant law in both the US and Canada are very similar. They're both derived primarily from English common law, so it's unsurprising.

Short-term residential leases, however, tend to be the subject of extensive statutory regulation. Check your state law code.

[†Seer†]

A co-signer is required to rent from the company (as I'm a college student), and the company said my application was acceptable up to the point of a co-signer, as the party who had previously agreed to signing backed out at the last moment.

It seems like it's a matter of the lease, and if there's no clause that restricts sub-letters, then it should be legal to live there, although it would remain on the mercy of the current renters?

Also, is it possible to be signed on to the lease later on? Say for example I get a co-signer from a different source, would the company add me on at a later date?

If anyone wants to/is willing to go over all of this on a messenger or anything, toss me a PM and I'll send info.

[Telonius]

Yeah, that co-signer clause is pretty common for college students. They basically want to be able to call the guy's parents if he doesn't pay the rent. My personal advice: get the co-signer. If you absolutely, positively can't find one, that's probably a black mark against you anyway. If nobody trusts you with handling the money, why should the landlord? Even so, if you can't find a cosigner you might be able to negotiate a higher price, larger deposit, or something with the landlord. It's a long shot, but it doesn't hurt to ask.

(Not a lawyer, just have dealt with college landlords before).

[†Seer†]

Yeah, that co-signer clause is pretty common for college students. They basically want to be able to call the guy's parents if he doesn't pay the rent. My personal advice: get the co-signer. If you absolutely, positively can't find one, that's probably a black mark against you anyway. If nobody trusts you with handling the money, why should the landlord? Even so, if you can't find a cosigner you might be able to negotiate a higher price, larger deposit, or something with the landlord. It's a long shot, but it doesn't hurt to ask.

(Not a lawyer, just have dealt with college landlords before).

*nods* Good ideas, will ask 'em when I go in today ^^.
I guess I should state, I'm proud, and don't like asking for help... 'Tis for that reason it's hard to find one, not because I'm untrustworthy :) I know pride is one of my defects, but I am thinking of asking a family friend to sign.

*EDIT* Another question. In the Residential landlord-tenant act, in section 59.18.570, a 'househeld member' is defined as : *"Household member" means a child or adult residing with the tenant other than the perpetrator of domestic violence, stalking, or sexual assault*

Does that allude to an adult living with their partner being legal, or just that if it is allowed they are protected under the RL-TA?

[valadil]

Most people just get their parents to co-sign.

We kept a friend in our apartment for one summer. The actual roommate was working out of town. He paid rent and our other friend paid him. 3 or 4 months and the apartment never caught on.

[†Seer†]

Most people just get their parents to co-sign.

*nods* Mine are unwilling to due to various reasons.
Called the company and they're willing to put my app on hold until I can get a signer. Going to make some calls and see what's what ^^

Thank you all very very much! All your info helped a lot/kept me from doing anything stupid

[BlackStaticWolf]

Technically he's only a trespasser if the person living there doesn't want him at the house/apartment (unless it's specifically mentioned in the lease). The landlord has no right to forbid the person to come there.

There's a lot more to trespass than that. You're thinking in terms of the crime/tort of trespass to land. I'm talking about the type of tenancy called tenancy at sufferance. If Seer were to actually live there, it would be at the landlord's sufferance. At the landlord's option, he could treat Seer as a trespasser and have him evicted.

You'd be right if this were the case of a short-term house guest. A landlord can't forbid short-term visitors. However, that isn't the case here. We're not talking about Seer visiting. Seer was talking about actually living there without the landlord's consent. Lease agreements always have provisions that prohibit tenants from doing that kind thing. Such provisions are almost always enforceable (I say almost because I've seen a lease for a HOME that had provision prohibiting any overnight guests... and that wouldn't be enforceable).

Thus, if the landlord feels like it, he could let Seer stay there. Or, he could just kick him out.

However, I do concede that my initial wording was imprecise. Other issues I didn't address because their too complicated and don't really matter: adverse possession.

Ditto.

Fun, innit? I actually like answering questions like this because I consider it good mental exercise and practice.

I concur. I believe there's a term in my licence to occupy that no visitor shall stay for more than two nights in any seven, but that's entirely reasonable given the nature of the premises (shared house; bedrooms rented separately) and the fact that it's a licence and not a lease.

Actually, lease agreements are largely the same. As a contract, it changes the rights of the parties from what they'd otherwise be. They can and do frequently contain similar enforceable provisions to what you describe. For example, mine has provisions that prohibit me having an overnight guest stay for longer than one week or from sub-letting without written permission from my landlord.

Short-term residential leases, however, tend to be the subject of extensive statutory regulation. Check your state law code.

Very true. Always read applicable statutes. However, in a situation like this, it's my opinion that the actual terms of the lease are FAR more important. Unless those terms are voidable in some fashion, they'll almost certainly be enforced over the default rights set forth by statute.

So read the lease.

*EDIT* Another question. In the Residential landlord-tenant act, in section 59.18.570, a 'househeld member' is defined as : *"Household member" means a child or adult residing with the tenant other than the perpetrator of domestic violence, stalking, or sexual assault*

Does that allude to an adult living with their partner being legal, or just that if it is allowed they are protected under the RL-TA?

I'd bank on the latter. However, as a practical matter... if you were say... trying to rent a 1 bedroom apartment and you wanted your SO to live with you, MOST landlords would allow it if you actually ASK for permission first. In which case, they'd certainly be covered under the RL-TA. The landlord would probably insist on amending the lease agreement to make the SO secondarily liable for rent, with you remaining primarily liable. At least that's what I'd do in his shoes.

The thing with landlord/tenant relations is... don't look at the landlord like he's your adversary who you have to put one over on. Treat him like a partner and you'll find that he's amenable to a lot of things.

[Don Julio Anejo]

There's a lot more to trespass than that. You're thinking in terms of the crime/tort of trespass to land. I'm talking about the type of tenancy called tenancy at sufferance. If Seer were to actually live there, it would be at the landlord's sufferance. At the landlord's option, he could treat Seer as a trespasser and have him evicted.

You'd be right if this were the case of a short-term house guest. A landlord can't forbid short-term visitors. However, that isn't the case here. We're not talking about Seer visiting. Seer was talking about actually living there without the landlord's consent. Lease agreements always have provisions that prohibit tenants from doing that kind thing. Such provisions are almost always enforceable (I say almost because I've seen a lease for a HOME that had provision prohibiting any overnight guests... and that wouldn't be enforceable).

Thus, if the landlord feels like it, he could let Seer stay there. Or, he could just kick him out.

However, I do concede that my initial wording was imprecise. Other issues I didn't address because their too complicated and don't really matter: adverse possession.

And this is what I meant by differences between US and Canada. Very few leases here actually make a point to say whether guests or other people living there are allowed. And if they do, it's usually for cheapo apartments in poor neighbourhoods.

However, since the OP is in the US and you're a lawyer so you know this stuff better than me, your advice is probably much more useful to Seer.

[unstattedCommoner]

*EDIT* Another question. In the Residential landlord-tenant act, in section 59.18.570, a 'househeld member' is defined as : *"Household member" means a child or adult residing with the tenant other than the perpetrator of domestic violence, stalking, or sexual assault*

Does that allude to an adult living with their partner being legal, or just that if it is allowed they are protected under the RL-TA?

Since that section forms part of a group of sections dealing with rights of tenants who have been, or whose household members have been, victims of domestic violence, stalking, or sexual assault, I don't immediately see its relevance.