Is what my landlord asking legal?

Question

I am moving out of my apartment in CA and my Landlord has requested that I pay up until September 15th. The new tenant is starting his lease on September 1st. Is it legal for them to collect rent from 2 tenants at the same time?

Thanks for your answers!

Answer 1

no its not legal for them to ask you to pay that ,if your out before the first of sept they have no right ,,good luck .

Answer 2

depends on your rent agreement in most cases he  cannot charge you  unless you failed to give 30 day notice to vacate  

Answer 3

NO

unless he has to clean up your mess

Answer 4

i would say no but look at your contract before doing anything

Answer 5

He can't call it rent. One tenant: one rent check.

He can charge you valid fees, but if you're moving out, just don't pay him. He's just trying to scare you out of some money.  

Answer 6

you are to vacate the apartment by the end of the month, the last rent payment you make. if you think otherwise, go on line to the rent guidelines in your area and read the tenants rights bill of rights.

Answer 7

yes if both are willing to pay. That does not change the fact that the new tenant can not move in until Sept. 15th. look at it this way. In most states landlord tenant laws are written to favor the landlord. Breach of contract is contract law. they are different.

Answer 8

Find your tenants board and ask their advice.  I am sure though if it's not in your lease and you gave proper notice, they can't request that you pay until Sept. 15, regardless of when they are renting it out again.

Tenant law in CA: http://www.hud.gov/local/ca/renting/tena...

Answer 9

I can't speak with absolute certainty about California, but generally, this sort of thing is...well...rather bad behaviour by the landlord.  A person who is paying rent is entitled to occupy the premises.  To rent out the premises to another tenant while the first tenant still has a valid lease...violates the terms of the first lease.

There's a slightly different analysis when a tenant has breached a lease (i.e. not giving sufficient notice of termination), but the end result is similar.  In that case, what the terminating tenant might pay isn't *rent*, per se, but damages for breach of contract.  And the catch about a landlord's entitlement to damages is that it's subject to mitigation, meaning that he has a duty to take reasonable measures to find a new tenant, and the breaching tenant gets the benefit of successful mitigation efforts.  (That's a complicated way of saying that when a new tenant takes the place, the old tenant is generally off the hook for ongoing rent obligations.)

Answer 10

Why not?  You pay up to the point at which you are leaving or some other such time that you agreed to in the lease.  If the new tenant is paying for a period that overlaps with you, then fine, they have agreed to it.