| Author | Post |
|---|
OH landlord
Member
| Joined: | Wed Sep 12th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 506 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 1st, 2008 12:53 pm |
|
You could fight this if you wanted by showing that the LL did not give you proper notice per lease clause and that he has not fulfilled the terms under which the lease can be broken. But the end result may be the same. He could be transferred back and you would end up having to move right back out after only 60 days notice. Would you want to do that? Is it worth fighting to move into this place only to possibly have to move right back out? Only you can decide that.
If you decide that it would be too much trouble, let the LL know that you will allow the lease break, despite not having all the terms being fulfilled, if he immediately refunds all monies paid to him.
|
FrustratedinMD
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 30th, 2008 11:15 am |
|
My wife and I recently signed a 2 year lease to move into a house on August 1, 2008. Yesteday, the owner called and said the house is no longer available since his employer MAY POTENTIALLY transfer him back to the area and he would need to move back into the house. In the lease, it does state the owner can break the lease with a 60 day notice in the event the owner is transferred back to the area.
My frustration is that the lease was signed only 4 days ago and now the owner wants to break it by saying there is talk he might be transferred back to the area. The lease does state he can do this by giving 60 days notice, but he's only giving 30 days notice and also there's no certainty that he will be transferred back to the area.
Can anyone help? What options do I have?
Thank you!
|
Current time is 01:52 pm | |
|
|
|
