Legal Question in Landlord & Tenant Law in California

To be sure of answering correctly would require reviewing the lease. There are two things to look for that might trip you up. First, not many but some leases that state they are for a year, also state that the tenancy is month-to-month and may be terminated on 30-days notice. Essentially what that makes it is a month-to-month with a rent lock, not a true lease. This is not common, but you need to make sure you don't have one of those. The other thing that is VERY common is a year lease, that is a true lease, but then has language that it converts or renews as a month-to-month after the initial term is up, unless one party or the other gives notice that the lease will terminate. Those kind of leases are actually far more common than a straight lease that just ends unless the parties sign a new lease. If, however, you just have a straight lease, with no notice requriement or roll-over provision, then you do not owe any rent beyond the end of the lease, provided you fully vacated and surrendered the premises by that date. If you do have a lease with a roll-over or holding over clause, you still may not owe the additional month's rent if the lease does not provide that the landlord can increase the rent at the end of the term and still keep it in effect. It may not be a winning argument, but you can argue that the rent increase notice was a material change in the terms of the rental agreement that you declined to accept. The trouble is, you probably did not give notice that you declined it. Still, by moving out after receiving the notice you have a colorable argument that by not accepting you terminated the lease at its end date instead of accepting the new terms, and that it was on the landlord/management to obtain your agreement if the lease was to continue. Worth a try if you are stuck with a roll-over or hold over to month-to-month clause.