Real Estate Law
Ask a Real Estate Law Question, Get an Answer ASAP!
if the lease has a clause that allows early termintion then you can do so. if there is no such clause in the lease then, no, you would not be able to terminate early. the fact that you have a termination clause with the management agent does not by itself give you such a clause with your tenant.
if you have the clause that allows you to terminate the lease early, you would need to follow the instructions stated there. it would entail a required period of notice etc.
if there is nothing that states that you can terminate a lease then you clearly can not. it is a contract and stays in effect for its term unless something allows it to be terminated. i will take a look at MD and IL to see what you are referring to because i am a bit surprised if that is the case. after all, if it is, what protection at any time is there for a tenant. are you sure you are not referring to a month to month situation?
either way, as stated, a lease is in effect for its full term unless clear language allows it to be terminated.
you do not assume anything. to the contrary. you draw a lease that states the tenant can occupay the premises for a year. there is and should be no assumption that, without an express right otherwise, you can terminate that and take over. as a matter of fact, the only assumption that would be made is that it should be different and that you would have a right to throw him out. but, as you stated, there is no room for assumption. in that regard, it is clearly stated. a lease gives rights to possession for the period of time expressed in the lease. that is clear.
as far as recourse, firstly, when you give notice the tenant need not vacate. if the tenant voluntarily vacates and essentially agrees to allow the lease to be terminated, you are fine. however, if you give notice and then , without court order and eviction notice, lock the tenant out, not only would you be liable for any costs that the tenant may incur in the process but you would have to allow the tenant to reoccupy the premises. Rule of thumb in ALL jurisdictions: DON'T TAKE MATTERS IN YOUR OWN HANDS AND ABSOLUTELY DO NOT LOCK A TENANT OUT.
you are stating that you are simply asking if the lease terminates with notice but that you are not contemplating eviction. the answer, as i stated, is that it does not terminate because it is effective for its term. further, it is not overly presumptive for me to assume that a question pertaining to a landlord breach would not include the question of what happens if an eviction follows. otherwise, what precisely is going on?
further, if the lease terminates with the notice and the landlord does not immediately evict, in essence, the same result can apply, just with one more step. that is, the landlord would then be able to either immmediately send a notice of eviciton to the extent that the lease is terminated and the tenant has not vacated; or the landlord could immediately send a notice of termination of the then-in-effect month to month lease and when the tenant does not leave, serve notice of eviction. either way, it makes no sense because if the lease is terminated the next step is always to serve a notice of eviction.
further to the above, there is a fundamental difference in the application of recourse when either a tenant or landlord breaks a lease. when a tenant does, landlord can go after the tenant for monetary damages but can not force the tenant to move back in. when the landlord breaches the lease by illegally evicting a tenant, the recourse is that the tenant can gain re-entry and might be entitled to monetary damages. in this instance, the tenant's place of residence has been removed and the necessary recourse is diffreent than simply monetary.
as far as your statement that the AZ code does not state what happens when a landlord breaks a lease, every code does as they state clearly that any eviction can only be done through the courts. to assume that we are not talking about an eviciton but the rights to simply give notice to terminate a lease during its term when there are no defaults by the tenant is certainly a stretch and would essentially remove the entire benefits of a written lease as far as a tenant is concerned. it would basically mean that all leases are de facto month to month leases.
i am sorry if you are viewing this entire scenario through a different lens than i am but a contract is effective until its term unless provisions therein allow for its earlier termination.
thank you. my apologies if you took any of my presumptions the wrong way.
i am happy we have now cleared this up and wish you the best of luck.
DISCLAIMER: Answers from Experts on JustAnswer are not substitutes for the advice of an attorney. JustAnswer is a public forum and questions and responses are not private or confidential or protected by the attorney-client privilege. The Expert above is not your attorney, and the response above is not legal advice. You should not read this response to propose specific action or address specific circumstances, but only to give you a sense of general principles of law that might affect the situation you describe. Application of these general principles to particular circumstances must be done by a lawyer who has spoken with you in confidence, learned all relevant information, and explored various options. Before acting on these general principles, you should hire a lawyer licensed to practice law in the jurisdiction to which your question pertains.
The responses above are from individual Experts, not JustAnswer. The site and services are provided “as is”. To view the verified credential of an Expert, click on the “Verified” symbol in the Expert’s profile. This site is not for emergency questions which should be directed immediately by telephone or in-person to qualified professionals. Please carefully read the Terms of Service (last updated February 8, 2012).