Bronchick's L/O contract clause question - Posted by vladimir (IL)

import · June 27, 2001, 9:11pm

Posted by Terry (Houston) on June 27, 2001 at 21:50:49:

If they “Vacate” in the middle of the night, read Skip Town, you may reenter the house and rent it back out.

If you don’t have that, to my understanding, you should go through the eviction process. Could be wrong on this though.

If you don’t have this clause they could say they went out of town for the weekend, with everything, and charge you with trespassing. Or say you have no right to re-rent the dwelling.

The last part basically means if they let their friends or anyone not on the lease “use” the place after skipping out you can give them the boot as well.

Then, since they are in breach of contract you can go after them for a judgment after you release the place for monies owed.

Bronchick is doing a great CYA here so you don’t have to go through the courts if they skip out, you have the right of reentry. You may want to document the condition of the place for another CYA with pictures.

This is my understanding, but be sure and get to know the laws in your state.

Terry

import · June 27, 2001, 9:11pm

Bronchick’s L/O contract clause question - Posted by vladimir (IL)

Posted by vladimir (IL) on June 27, 2001 at 21:11:30:

has a clause that says:
"IT IS FURTHER AGREED that in case said premises are left vacant, then the Landlord may, without being obligated to do so and without terminating this lease, re-take possession of the premises. If any part of the rent herein reserved be unpaid, the Landlord may rent the same for such rent as the Landlord may be able to do so, making such changes and repairs as may be required, giving credit for the amount so received, less all expenses.

It is agreed that if the tenant shall be in arrears in the payments of any installment of rent, or any portion thereof, or in default of any of the covenants or agreements herein contained to be performed by the Tenant, which default shall be uncorrected for a period of five (5) days after the Landlord has given written notice thereof, Landlord may, at his option, without liability for trespass or damages, enter into and upon said premises, or a portion, thereof; declare the term of this lease ended; repossess the said premises as of the Landlord’s former estate; peaceably expel and remove the Tenant, those claiming under him, or any person or persons occupying the same and their effects; all without prejudice to any other remedies available to the Landlord for arrears of rent or breach of covenant."

Question–what in the world does this mean?

Thanks in advance for your response

import · June 29, 2001, 2:54pm

Re: Bronchick’s L/O contract clause question - Posted by Alex Gurevich, TX

Posted by Alex Gurevich, TX on June 29, 2001 at 14:54:50:

This is essentially a waiver of tenant’s rights for a legal eviction proceding.

I think it’s there more for an intimidation factor than for anything else. Personally, I would be very careful in trying to exercise this clause if someone (tenant or his family members) occupies the property. It’s very easy to get in troubles in this case and get tied up in court for a much longer time than it takes to evict someone formally.

If, however, the tenant gives signs that property is “abandoned” (empty without furniture, utilities are terminated, phone lines are dead, etc.) I’d be more comfortable in exercising the rights granted under this clause.

If fact I did on a few occassions when I was left an empty house, but I also has an “abanadonment” language in my contract. Most recent one being the mail returned with the yellow sticker “moved, left no address”. That in my view can easily be construed as “abandonment” of premises.

The main difficulty in enforcing that clause is in the fact it’s nearly impossible to “peaceably expel and remove the Tenant” as the contract suggest. The only true “peaceful” removal of tenant can happen under the supervision of a constable empowered by the court order of writ of possession.

Again, the contract says a landlord can do it “without liability for trespass or damages”. If challenged in court, this could be thrown out and there may be liability.