The victim has moved out and exited the lease early, citing California Civil Code 1946.7, and is requesting all the deposit back early as well as a refund on most recent rent paid.

The alleged perpetrator remains in the home and will not communicate. The lease did not include jointly and several language.

We interpret CA Code 1946.7 that the victim is indeed released from the lease. For us that raises two questions:

What happens to the deposit?

The victim is requesting a refund of the entire deposit. What we read in the Code is, "...a landlord shall not, due to the termination, require a tenant who terminates a lease or rental agreement pursuant to this section to forfeit any security deposit money or advance rent paid"

If we were to refund the deposit to the victim at this point, we will have no deposit on the lease, and the co-tenant might make a claim for the deposit if the lease is ends as agreed. We don't want to get mixed up in their financial affairs ("I paid all of the deposit" etc,") And we'd like to be covered as much as possible as we predict, but don't know that, there could be significant damage/costs and unpaid rent at the end of the lease.

Our default action is to not send the entire deposit to the victim, but instead issue a single check (if any is to be returned) in both of their names upon conclusion of the lease as agreed. Not sure who to mail it to if they are not communicating, but our default action is to mail it to the victim.

What happens to the rent paid for the current month?

The victim is requesting that the rent paid for the current month is refunded. Rent is paid in advance.

We interpret CA Code 1946.7 that the victim is indeed excused from the lease and need not pay rent 14 days after giving notice to the landlord. In this case, notification occurred five days after rent for the month was paid.

Does the Code call for 'refunds' of rent, and if so, to who? And if so, does that mean that we give some (roughly half) of the advance rent back to the victim? Or to the alleged perpetrator and the victim, split 50/50?

And the Code doesn't make any mention of where the burden of the remaining lease falls. It appears the burden falls on the landlord to convince the alleged perpetrator to agree to take on the full responsibility of the remaining lease. And failing that, the landlord must bear the costs of removing the alleged perpetrator (assuming rent is not paid) repair any damages, and start all over again.

My opinion is that It appears that the perpetrator can gain the most from this law. We could foresee claims of being owed half of any refund to the victim. Unless we are misinterpreting.

Have any of you gone through this and how do you interpret CA Code 1946.7?

San Jose, California

0 Votes