[quote=Hobie]Jwizzle: Are you saying it is ok for a tenant to subjectively break a lease and incur no penalty?

Does this apply equally to commercial buildings? In commercial buildings I’ve leased I had to put up a personal guarantee ( credit card or bank routing number ) with some owners.

So only if the owner can’t find a new tenant then the leaseholder becomes liable?[/quote]

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. I am pretty sure it only applies to residential properties, not commercial, although i’m not a real estate attorney so don’t take this as legal advice. California law is very pro-tenant for residential situations, which overrides pro-landlord leases. I believe there is less law regulating commercial leases because you are usually dealing with more sophisticated parties.

And in the context of residential landlord-tenant law, yes, a leaseholder is really only liable to the extent that the landlord cannot find a new tenant (and like I said, landlord needs to show diligence and good faith in trying to find a new tenant). Like matt-waiting above said, this is to prevent the landlord from receiving a windfall from the lease being broken – the most that can happen is that the landlord should be made whole when this happens (i.e. gets rent they expected).