Legal Question in Real Estate Law in California

Re: Former tenant liability when not dropped from lease

Yes. If you weren't named on the lease, then you shouldn't be liable for any rent when you were not occupying the premises. You should present the judge at the small claims court whatever documentation you have to show when you moved out.

Re: Former tenant liability when not dropped from lease

On the facts as given it looks to me as though you can defend against the claims and avoid liability. However, small-claims outcomes are unpredictible and don't necessarily always follow the strict letter of the law but rather the judge's personal view of who's right and who's to blame.

Further, there are facts missing. It is possibly important to know when the landlord became aware that your sister had replaced you as the co-occupant with your mother. If the landlord was clearly aware you weren't there, due to the names on the rent checks, or whatever other reason, you have a better case.

The analysis goes something like this. When the original lease expired, the tenancy became you and your mother, month-to-month. When you moved out, nothing changed, but presumably somewhere along the way, perhaps when the new lease was presented for signature, the landlord became aware that your sister had replaced you as the occupant. From that point onward, responsibility for the rent rested with your mother and your sister.

The question of who, if anyone, put up a security deposit is a complicating factor. If you made a deposit but never asked for it back, that could muddy the issue of whether you ever LEGALLY moved out and your sister moved in. It also gives the landlord a financial lever.

The real issue here, in my opinion, is whether there is unpaid rent and damage to the apartment. If so, then who is really to blame? If the judge can figure that out from the evidence given, the result will be proper, except that it sounds as though your sister wasn't named as a defendant.

Maybe your family should get together and work out the problem between yourselves, then present the landlord with a settlement proposal.

Re: Former tenant liability when not dropped from lease

I think you may be liable because you did not inform the landlord that you were moving out. When the one-year lease expired you became a tenant at sufferance. Colyear v. Tobriner (1936) 7 Cal. 2d 735. A landlord who accepts rent from a tenant at sufferance is presumed to have elected to treat the tenancy as a periodic tenancy. If you paid rent monthly, you became a month-to-month tenant. Civil Code �1945.

You stated that you continued to live in the home until 1998, or roughly 2 years after the lease expired. Assuming you paid and the landlord accepted rent, you became a month-to-month tenant. This tenancy continues until either you or the landlord gives a 30-day notice of termination. You did not give any notice and you continued as a tenant who is liable for rent.