Re: Tenant wants to break “No Right of Early Termination” lease.

"Tiiger" <rajmkumar88@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:ed7663b5-fa7f-4a14-8561-a72e5079f5a0@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
> Need your opinion.
>
> I rented my old house in April. The lease was signed for 1 year with
> no early termination clause.  We have the faxed copy from their agent
> with the tenant’s initials on agreeing to “No Right of Early
> Termination”.
>
> It has been three months and now my tenant wants to break the lease.
> They just want to pay 2 months rent and break the lease. We have
> already paid a months to their agent.
>
> It is extremely hard to rent this property again, as subdivision added
> a bylaw recently - prohibition on renting. I have only three months to
> rent the property, if not I have to sell it. It would be a loss
> selling my old home in this market. And it is a real pain renting this
> property again. There is a good chance it may not rent.
>
> Please advice on our course of action,
> 1. Should we legally contend? They have an excellent credit but
> unfortunately is an attorney.
> 2. Or, should we take their payment, and try renting it again and take
> our chances there.

See my answer in misc.legal.

In this thread, someone said that if you rent the place to someone else you 
release your claim to rent from the original tenant from that date forward. 
That is not accurate.  Renting to a replacement tenant reduces your damages 
to a limited extent.  Rent received from a replacement tenant reduces the 
amount you can get in a judgment against the original tenant.  But that 
reduction is limited to the amount received from the replacement.  That 
payment received doesn't affect your right to rent from the original tenant 
except for the amount received from the replacement tenant.

Hypothetical example: Tenant One under a valid lease moves out on January 1, 
2008 owing rent for all of calendar 2008 in the amount of $1,000 per month. 
Landlord diligently tries to re-let the place and succeeds to a limited 
extent.  Replacement Tenant Two signs a six month lease from March 1 to 
August 31 for $500 per month.  Assume that this is the best the landlord 
could do because of market conditions.  Tenant Two pays rent as agreed and 
moves out on time after proper notice.  The landlord is not able to re-let 
the property until October 1, and then only on a month to month basis for 
$400 per month.  Tenant Three moves out without notice after two months 
after paying for only one month.  The landlord is not able to re-let the 
property during the remainder of 2009, even at reduced rent.  Landlord then 
sues Tenant One.  Landlord should win a judgment for $12,000 minus the 
$3,000 that tenant Two paid and the $400 that Tenant Three paid, plus $600 
that the landlord spend on advertising in January and August.  The judgment 
should be for $9,200.

A general rule pertaining to all lawsuits for money damages is: a plaintiff 
who wins will get a judgment that has been reduced by mitigation of damages. 
Mitigation includes the amount by which the plaintiff (a) has actually 
mitigated damages, and (b) should have been able to mitigate damages. 
("Mitigate" means "entirely or partially avoid.")

This answer must not be relied on as legal advice for the reasons posted 
here:  http://mcgyverdisclaimer.blogspot.com .  And I am not your attorney.

McGyver