The object of damages is to make the landlord whole. That means if the owner finds a new tenant (or the court finds that he unreasonably did not mitigate his damages and look for a new tenant), the lease breaker only has to pay damages for the amount of actual loss.
There may be some damages for getting the place ready to rent out again and maybe a month of lost rent when showing and getting a new tenant in there. But owners don’t get a windfall (damages & rent from a new tenant) just because the lease was broken.
Landlord/tenant law is pro tenant, not pro landlord.
[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).
Jwizzle and Matt: Thank you. Very clear. Fair enough.
Agree that commercial is different from residential. Commercial will follow you down collecting anything they can until you BK. Then tap your personal guarantee. (fortunately haven’t been there, …yet 😉
Didn’t fully understand that tenant has such power. Been lucky…. thx.
Owning so-called investment properties is definitely not for everyone.
In Temecula, as “investors/sharks” have come in and bought up short sales and foreclosures the market has become flooded with available rental properties.
This has led to all sorts of interesting consequences IMO, including an out-of-balance rental market.
.
