TVS Tenant Verification Articles of Interest

Bedbug problem bites at tenant

Thu, 02 Sep 2010 00:00:00 -0700

Q: One unit in our fourplex has a bedbug problem. The landlord hired an exterminator, who found a bug in two other units, so he recommends treating the entire building. We're going to have to take time off from work to prepare our apartment, then spend a night in a motel. We didn't cause this problem. Shouldn't the landlord reimburse us for the time off work, in addition to our lodging costs? --Natalie B.

A: Whether you can fairly (and legally) expect the landlord to cover your expenses depends on whether your state has addressed this situation. Unfortunately, very few have, though that is changing as the bedbugs are once again starting to bite.

Maine has brand-new legislation that sensibly tackles this problem (Maine Rev. Stat. Ann. Section 6021-A). The legislation was crafted by a bipartisan group of interested landlords and tenants, and embraced by the governor.

Under the law, landlords may not rent infested units; if a unit or adjacent unit is being treated for an infestation, the landlord must disclose this to prospective tenants; and if a tenant or prospective tenant asks, the landlord must disclose the last date the unit was inspected and found to be free of any infestation.

Once a landlord is notified of the presence of bedbugs, the time periods for inspection and treatment are very short.

Maine has also addressed the issue of "who pays?" when tenants must leave, though the law is not abundantly clear. First, tenants must comply with all remediation measures; if they don't, they can be held financially responsible for the cost of eradication.

If the tenant can't comply with the inspections or control measures, the landlord must offer "reasonable assistance," including financial assistance. The landlord may charge the tenant a "reasonable amount for any such assistance, subject to a reasonable repayment schedule, not to exceed six months."

This could mean that if the landlord fronts the cost of a night's stay in a motel, the tenant will be expected to pay the landlord back over the next six months.

It's not so clear whether the value of lost time at work (time you'll be spending sorting through your stuff, for example, or making it available for inspection and treatment) is also contemplated by this legislation.

Long story short: If you live in Maine, it's likely that you will have to cover the cost of your night away, but you might get a sort of short-term loan from the landlord to cover the expense.

Tenants living in states that haven't passed laws like Maine's will have to depend on tried-and-true (but often difficult to apply) habitability laws. All states but Arkansas require the landlord to offer and maintain fit and habitable premises, which includes the responsibility to pay for repairs or upkeep when problems arise that are not the fault of the tenant.

The challenge with bedbug infestations is that it's often very hard to figure out who is responsible for their presence.

Consider a broken heater that breaks through no fault of the tenant, or the arrival of ants when heavy rains disturb their outside nests: Tackling these problems must be paid for by the landlord, because the tenant didn't do (or fail to do) anything to prevent them.

But bedbugs don't just appear. Someone brings them in, and landlords understandably seek to identify the culprit and stick him or her with the bill.

Trouble is, it's very hard to trace the infestation to a particular tenant. For this reason, landlords usually end up paying for the eradication efforts. But it's a much more significant burden to make landlords also pay even innocent tenants' costs to relocate.

Perhaps that's why Maine stopped short of such a requirement. It would be surprising to find a judge willing to impose this cost on a landlord short of some proof that the landlord put off dealing with the bugs, which made the problem worse, resulting in drastic or repeated treatments (and nights away for his tenants).

Q: I work for a management company and have been here six months -- I'm still in training. Part of my job is to accept rental applications and do a preliminary review. I looked at one the other day, given to me by a woman who came with four kids. She wanted to rent a small two-bedroom unit; it seemed too small to me.

I wrote a note on the application for my boss, asking if I should direct her to a larger unit. He got real upset, and told me that this could trigger a fair housing lawsuit. I never meant any harm; I just didn't know whether the unit was big enough. Did I do anything wrong? --Henry C.

A: Credit your boss with being super sensitive to the problem of discrimination against families, which often happens when landlords set occupancy standards that effectively eliminate families from consideration.

In response to these practices, the federal government (HUD) has offered guidelines for landlords to follow when setting occupancy policies. That standard is "two per bedroom," but it is not absolute (for example, if a bedroom is unusually large, it might accommodate more).

In addition, landlords may set more restrictive standards if the nature of the property or its systems cannot safely or reasonably handle the number of residents that would result from a "two-per-bedroom" rule.

They may also have to adjust upwards -- for instance, the presence of an infant in the parents' bedroom results in three residents, but no one can seriously claim that the infant overcrowds the room.

Many states have followed the federal rule, and a few have set more generous standards. In California, for example, the rule of thumb is "two per bedroom plus one." But in California, as with the federal rule, the reality of the setup can affect the calculation.

Let's imagine that you, like most, are subject to the two-per-bedroom guideline. Technically, this family of five is over the limit, but as explained, each situation needs to be evaluated in light of the precise setup. If the rental is in California, the family would qualify.

So much for theory. Now, to the heart of your question: Did you do anything wrong? I don't think you did, nor did you expose your boss to a likely charge of housing discrimination. Here's why.

The fair housing laws are designed to prevent landlords from treating specific classes of persons differently (worse) than everyone else, whether by refusing to rent to them, setting more onerous terms and conditions of renting, or making statements that have the effect of discouraging them from living on the property.

You did none of this. Instead, you asked your boss whether the unit you showed the applicant was too small, and whether you should suggest a bigger one.

Critically, you didn't make that observation to the applicant herself, nor did you steer her to the bigger apartment. If you had, and if the original two-bedroom unit would have been appropriate under the occupancy standard of your state, the answer might be different.

That's because your applicant could have concluded that you were trying to discourage her from living there, by telling her that a larger (and presumably more expensive) unit was the only one you'd offer.

Think for a moment about the consequences if the answer were different. No one in your position -- someone learning the business, needing to ask questions of those in the know -- would dare ask a question, for fear of exposing the boss to legal trouble. When people don't ask questions, they don't learn.

Without this opportunity to learn about occupancy standards and steering, you would go your merry way, possibly making risky (though well-meaning) remarks to applicants themselves, thereby discouraging families from renting and possibly violating the law.

Renter liable for fall on stairs?

Fri, 27 Aug 2010 00:00:00 -0700

Q: I work at home and regularly receive UPS deliveries of material. Last week, the deliveryman slipped on the front stairs, hurting himself. Those stairs have been in bad shape for years, and I've asked for repairs, but to no avail. I imagine that the delivery service will go after the property owner, but am I liable, too? --Leah C.

A: Practically speaking, there's little chance that the delivery company (more precisely, its workers' compensation insurance carrier) will go after you as a source of compensation for the employee's injuries, pain and suffering, and lost wages. Chances are, the insurance company will pay the claim, then look to your landlord for reimbursement, who will refer the matter to his insurance carrier.

If it can be shown that the deliveryman slipped because of the dangerous stairs that the landlord knew about but failed to fix, the workers' comp carrier will get reimbursed for the amount it paid on the claim by your landlord's insurance company (and the landlord's premiums may go up).

But let's suppose that your landlord has no liability insurance, and you, on the other hand, have a renters insurance policy, which covers you when others are hurt on the property as a result of your carelessness. The delivery service will, again, refer the claim to its workers' comp carrier, who will look around for a source of reimbursement. Going after your insurance policy (and its deep pocket) will be more attractive than trying to get money from your landlord.

Are you legally liable for the deliveryman's injuries? Perhaps, because you owe the deliveryman a "duty of care," just as your landlord owes the same duty to you. The deliveryman is a "business invitee," someone whom you must at least warn of imminent dangers, if you cannot fix them (no one expects you to repair the stairs yourself).

Because you knew of the dangerous condition of the steps and didn't warn the delivery service (nothing wrong with a "Caution: Loose stairs!" sign at the bottom, or a written warning sent to the company), you could be held partly at fault. The extent of your exposure would be the extent to which you were responsible, according to a judge, jury, or mediator.

For example, if they found that you were 25 percent responsible (as opposed to your landlord's 75 percent), then you'd be on the hook for only 25 percent of the delivery person's damages.

Tenants will not be held responsible in every "shared knowledge" situation, however. Suppose it's your neighbor who slips and falls on the bad stairs: Will you be liable, if only partly, for her injuries, because you knew of the dangerous situation? Probably not, because you do not owe a duty of care to your fellow tenants.

What about a guest of yours: Must you warn guests of dangerous situations? The answer here will vary according to state law, but many states impose a duty of care for social, as well as business, invitees.

Q: I'm using a form for collecting a bounced-check fee, which I got from my apartment association. It tells tenants that they will be "liable" for damages of at least $100 or higher (up to three times the amount of the check but no more than $1,500). I must admit, back in the day, I bounced a rent check myself, but the fee was much lower. Was I just lucky? --Amy F.

A: The monetary consequences you're describing sound a lot like California's bounced-check statute, Civil Code Section 1719. That statute does indeed specify that people who issue bounced checks may become liable for those damages -- but there are two big steps that need to be taken first.

The holder of the bad check must demand that the issuer make good on the check, and give the person 30 days to do so. Then, the holder must go to court (small claims court will do) and sue over the check. Only if the holder wins will the judge turn to these possible damages, and impose them if appropriate

Like many states, California provides for a simpler remedy for holders of bad checks, one that does not require going to court. It's in the same statute, just before the "go to court" remedy. It provides that the holder may demand the amount of the check and a service charge not to exceed $25 for the first check, and not more than $35 for each subsequent check passed on insufficient funds.

It seems that the form you're using doesn't mention this simpler approach, which of course is what any landlord would use. No landlord is going to allow a tenant to remain in the rental, without paying the rent, while the landlord goes to small claims court to sue over the bounced check.

Instead, the landlord will send a pay-or-quit notice, and begin eviction proceedings if the tenant neither pays nor leaves. So why do you suppose the writers of this form omitted the obvious remedy, and instead advised the tenant of a course of action that no reasonable landlord would undertake?

One is tempted to conclude that we're dealing with an example of intentional sneakiness here. The mischief of this form, which on its face is probably a correct statement of law, is that it doesn't explain that the landlord has to go to court -- and win -- for the Draconian consequences listed on the form to apply.

As a result, both landlord and tenant may mistakenly conclude that the landlord can unilaterally impose these significant consequences. The result may be what the form writers had in mind -- scaring the tenant into making good on the check, and possibly giving the landlord a tidy bit of income -- but it's accomplished by sleight of hand. Why else would the form fail to mention the $25/$35 option?

Even well-meaning landlords may be misled into thinking that they may charge $100 (or more), not having been educated by their own form (and their own apartment association). The consequences could be costly: If the tenant refuses to pay the fee and raises this as a defense when the landlord evicts for nonpayment, the landlord will lose the case, and may have to pay the tenant's attorney fees and court costs.

Whose credit check counts?

Thu, 19 Aug 2010 00:00:00 -0700

Q: We're looking for a place to rent in a tight rental market, and have filled out several rental applications. Each of them asks for a credit-check fee, from $25 to $35, which covers the cost to order a credit report.

We have our own copies of our report, from each of the three agencies, but when we asked the management companies to accept our copies, they refused. Paying repeatedly for a credit report is getting really expensive. Is there anything we can do? --Marsha and Ben

A: Landlords don't like to accept applicants' own copies of their credit reports because they're afraid that the report may be altered or old (with the issue date changed). That's a legitimate concern, because sophisticated computer users doubtless have ways to doctor the reports. Because of this concern, there is probably no way to force management companies or landlords to accept your personal copies of your credit report.

Unless you live in Wisconsin, that is. And even in Wisconsin, there are some limits on your right to require landlords to take your credit report directly from you, rather than charging you a fee to get it from the credit reporting agencies. Your report must be less than 30 days old, and management doesn't have to accept it unless you offer it before they ask for it: see Wisconsin Administrative Code Section 134.05(4)(b).

The first limitation makes perfect sense -- and even a 29-day-old report can miss relevant and new information that a landlord would want to know. But requiring the applicant to offer the report before the landlord asks for it strikes me as a bit odd -- it does nothing to discourage tenants from doctoring their reports, which is why most landlords want to get their own copy directly.

Laws in many states explicitly forbid landlords from keeping the credit-check fee unless they actually order the report. Even if your state doesn't have this type of law, it's probably old-fashioned fraud for landlords to pocket a fee for a task they don't perform.

If you have paid for a credit check but get bounced out of the running based on the landlord's preliminary review of your application, you should get that fee back.

Q: Our town has had its share of unemployment and wage cuts over the past couple of years. Many of my residents work for one large employer, who has instituted wage and hours cuts. These are good tenants; I know that some are having trouble making the rent. So I've offered a rent concession to these employees.

Some other tenants, who haven't necessarily experienced layoffs or cuts, have complained, and are saying that I'm discriminating against them. Am I? --Axel P.

A: Under federal law, only members of specific "protected classes" can claim the protection of the fair housing laws, which prohibit discrimination. Those classes are based on race or color, religion, national origin, familial status, disability and sex.

Many states have expanded that list, to include gender identity, sexual orientation and source of income. No state has created a protected class consisting of people who do not work for "Employer X." If those tenants don't get the rent break you're offering, that's just too bad.

If it weren't for the great state of California, that would be the short and sweet answer to your question: You may favor these residents just as you may give rent concessions only to those who wear red socks or root for the Red Sox.

But in California, things are a bit more complicated, because employers and landlords there must not only refrain from discriminating against specific protected classes, but they must also refrain from discriminating on any "arbitrary" basis.

Over the years, the courts have made it clear that arbitrary discrimination occurs when a business discriminates on the basis of one's physical appearance, and even one's occupation. Perhaps making a distinction based on whether or not a tenant has suffered a wage or hours reduction from Employer X would count as arbitrary discrimination based on these decisions.

Luckily, the ever-busy California Legislature has stepped in to clarify this issue. As of November 2009, the concessions you're offering are officially legal. That's because the governor signed a bill, effective immediately, protecting business establishments that offer concessions to those who have experienced a loss or reduction of employment or reduction of wages: see state Senate Bill 367; Civil Code Section 51.13.

The legislation was necessary because some consumers were apparently objecting to discounts and other benefits to furloughed state workers, and were threatening to sue under the state's Unruh Act (the law prohibiting arbitrary discrimination).

If you're in California, consider playing it extra safe (and fair) by extending your concessions to any resident, regardless of his or her employer, who experiences a wage or hours cut. If you don't, you may find yourself facing an arbitrary discrimination claim -- after all, if the pay reduction is the same, what difference does it make that another employer imposed it?

Unless you can come up with a compelling answer, you'll be courting an arbitrary discrimination claim.

Protect deposit from distressed landlord

Thu, 05 Aug 2010 00:00:00 -0700

Q: We rent a single-family home from an individual who collected two months' rent -- $9,000 -- as a deposit. We've gotten several letters for her from a bank, and last week a representative from the bank arrived with some legal papers for the owner and asked us to sign for them.

We got suspicious, confronted the owner, and learned that she's behind on her mortgage and in danger of foreclosure. Worried about our deposit, we asked if she had it and learned that she has spent it! She claims she's going to sell the house and will have the money at the end of the lease. But with two months left on our lease, we want to tell her to apply our deposit to the rent -- we have no faith that we will ever get it back.

She's now pulling rank on us (she sells real estate for a living), and is telling us that we're breaking our contract and she wants us out. What should we do? --Doug P.

A: Your landlord had no business using your deposit for her own purposes. Security deposits in many states may not even be combined (kept in the same bank account) with the landlord's other funds; and in every state, they must be available at all times, not just at the end of the lease.

For example, if the landlord were to break the lease halfway through the term (by failing to keep the rental habitable, for example), the tenant would be justified in moving out early, which would trigger the landlord's duty to account for and return the deposit. The landlord cannot say, "I'll have it for you when the lease should have ended."

Your landlord's candor is surprising, and no doubt she regrets it now. She's asking you to have faith in her after learning that she had no qualms about illegally using your money once already. It's no wonder that you're hesitant. If the house sells for less than what the owner owes the bank, there will be no funds from which to pay you, period.

Even if there is money left over from the sale, it's unlikely that sale will happen by the time your lease ends in a couple of months. Even in the best of markets, having escrow close within two months of putting the home on the market would be remarkable -- and the house isn't even on the market yet.

Technically speaking, tenants should not do what you're proposing (most leases prohibit it). And in a few states, laws explicitly prohibit tenants from forcing the landlord to use the deposit for the last month or months' rent; if they do, the deposit itself will be forfeited.

Those are the rules -- now let's get practical. If you withhold rent for the next two months, your landlord is unlikely to file an eviction lawsuit against you, for the simple reason that she probably does not have the money to hire a lawyer to handle it.

Even if she could persuade one to take the case (perhaps you have a "fees and costs" clause in the lease, providing that the loser pays the winner's expenses in a lawsuit over the lease), most savvy lawyers will evaluate the case and say, "No, thanks." They know a loser when they see it, and -- especially if they won't be paid unless they win -- they'll turn the case away.

You may be wondering why the landlord's eviction case is "a loser" if you're not legally entitled to make the landlord use the deposit in place of rent. Good question -- and the answer is a variation of Earl Warren's Judge's Rule No. 1: "You just can't do that" (Rule No. 2 was, "Nothing's too good for the kiddies").

Most judges, if they believe you when you testify that you were told your deposit had been illegally used, will find a way to keep the landlord from further taking advantage of you by setting you up to lose a large deposit.

To protect yourself, however, consider writing to the landlord and offering to pay your rent for the next two months, into an escrow account that will be set up with your lawyer or a bank. The bank or lawyer should be instructed to release the rent to the landlord as soon as the landlord deposits your security deposit into the same account.

That way, no one can accuse you of scheming to get out of paying your rent. At the end of the lease, if the landlord has not placed your entire $9,000 into the account, the rent you've placed there ($9,000) goes back to you.

Though it would be irrational (your landlord has more important ways to spend her time and energies, like trying to sell houses), it is possible that your landlord will terminate your lease for nonpayment of rent and attempt to evict you (perhaps by filing the papers herself).

That would result in an eviction filing on your rental history, regardless of how the case turns out, which could be a problem for you when renting in the future. Only you can weigh the chances that she would take this step.

Incidentally, your landlord is not only playing fast and loose with your deposit, she may be imperiling her real estate license, too. Why do you suppose that mail and visits from the bank (but from no one else) came to your address, not hers? It's not a simple mix-up.

Most likely, she stated on her mortgage papers that the home you're living in would be her primary residence. Had she declared that the property would be rented out, the bank would have included a provision or a "rider" (available in most states) allowing it to demand the rent directly from the tenant if the owner fails to make her mortgage payments.

By fraudulently describing her intended use of the property, she's set herself up for some legal problems, including the disapproval of her state licensing agency if it learns of her dishonesty. There's just no telling what's going to emerge when you begin turning over rocks.

Q: I own and manage a large apartment complex. One of my tenants is a Boy Scouts leader and asked me to use the meeting room for free (normally, we charge a small fee for exclusive use of the room).

I agreed, because I want to encourage participation in the Scouts. But another resident, who opposes the Scouts' stance on homosexuality and atheism, has challenged me, saying that by giving the Scouts a break, I'm practicing illegal discrimination. Is this correct? --Janice G.

A: If you extended free use of the meeting room to a resident's Christian group, say, but not a Muslim one, the Muslim group would have a classic claim of discrimination on the basis of religion. And if you allowed church groups to meet for free, but not an atheist group, you'd be in similar hot water (as odd as it may seem, when it comes to discrimination on the basis of religion, atheists get as much protection as believers).

But that's not exactly what your tenant is complaining about. It appears that he simply does not like it that a group whose positions he disagrees with gets to use the facilities for free.

So the question becomes: Does he have a legal right to relief from his discomfort?

Sometimes, the law does allow people who have not been victimized directly to sue for discrimination. For example, if you openly practiced a discriminatory policy of refusing to rent to members of a certain ethnicity, not only those prospects, but current tenants as well, could bring you to task in court.

The law protects not only the interests of the persons directly discriminated against, but those who indirectly feel the effects. Because a discriminatory policy robs residents of the ability to live among all ethnicities, the law considers them harmed, and lets current tenants sue you for discrimination that's primarily directed at other people.

Your tenant's complaint is not too different from this situation. For example, if the Boy Scouts get to use the room for free, but the group planning the complex's float for the gay pride parade has to pay, and state law includes sexual orientation as a protected category, he might have a claim.

And this might be so even if he were not a part of that gay pride group, for the same reason that a current tenant may complain about a landlord's discriminatory treatment of a potential tenant. The basis is the same: Discriminatory policies by the landlord have an indirect effect on all tenants, not just those who might be directly affected by them.

Can landlord tap rent when damages exceed deposit?

Fri, 30 Jul 2010 00:00:00 -0700

Q: The rental market in my city is tight, and it's common for applicants to offer many months' prepaid rent as an incentive for landlords to rent to them. I accepted six months' rent from a couple who signed a year's lease, then left after a few months. The damage they left behind was more than the security deposit could cover. Can I use the balance of the prepaid rent to make up the difference? --Judd T.

A: Sorry to begin on a note of disappointment, but I sure wish you had told us that your lease specifically states that prepaid rent may be applied to rent and to any other sums due under the lease. If the lease had included a provision like this, then you would be able to use the prepaid rent to cover damage caused by the tenants.

Because the lease makes the tenants financially responsible for damage, the cost to repair that damage becomes a "sum due under the lease."

But we'll have to assume that you didn't specify how the prepaid rent could be used -- in other words, that the lease simply described it as prepaid rent. The law is clear that you can use that money for rent.

Even if your state requires landlords to use reasonable efforts to re-rent when tenants break their leases, you are within your rights to keep the unit vacant through the last month for which the rent was prepaid and use that money to pay yourself rent.

But consistent with your duty to re-rent, you will need to begin looking for a replacement tenant to take over as of the day the prepaid rent runs out. If you can't rent it by that date, your tenants owe you for the additional time it stays vacant, up to the end of their original lease term.

Of course, you'll have to find them -- and sue them -- to recover the rent you lost beyond the amount they paid in advance, as well as for the damage that the deposit didn't cover.

Rather than letting the place sit empty, it might make more sense to try to find a new tenant right away. After all, few landlords like to leave properties vacant, for very commonsense reasons. If, as you say, the market is hot, you might get a renter quickly, leaving you with only a month or two of vacancy. You can use the prepaid rent to cover these vacant months.

If a new tenant moves in during a time period that's covered by the prepaid rent, you don't get a windfall: Collecting double rent is not permitted in a "reasonable efforts to re-rent" state. So now we have to answer the harder part of your question: Can you use that extra prepaid rent not as rent, but as a source of money to pay for damage caused by the tenant?

You're asking whether, in legal terms, you can apply a set-off, using the tenants' rent money to pay for repairing the damage they caused.

A set-off involves settling accounts between two parties, each of which owes the other money. The right of set-off is often captured in statutes, allowing banks, for example, to set off a general deposit against a depositor's matured debt or take money from your savings account to pay overdrawn amounts on your checking account.

The right to set off may also be expressly included in the contract between the parties -- my wishful thinking at the start of this column was that you had such a provision in your lease.

But luckily for you, there's another right of set-off, contained in good old English (and American) common law.

As long ago as 1841, the Supreme Court described a set-off as a person's right "to apply the unappropriated moneys of his debtor, in his hands, in extinguishment of the debts due to him." (See: Gratiot v. United States, 40 U.S. 336, 370; 1841.)

Importantly, you can't use this money as a source of funds to pay future debts; you must use it now when the debt is already owed and the amount of the debt is certain.

There are certainly lawyers who would argue against using a set-off, pointing out that it's safer from a legal perspective to return the rent and then sue in small claims court for the cost of repairs that exceeded the security deposit. But let's step into the real world for a moment: Suppose you use the prepaid rent, or some of it, to cover the uncompensated damage costs.

If your tenants want that money back, they will have to file a lawsuit in small claims court. If they sue you for improper use of their prepaid rent, you can countersue for the costs of repairing the damage they caused -- and everyone will have as much money at the end of the lawsuit as they did at the beginning.

In short, if the tenants object to your use of their prepaid rent, they can force the small claims court lawsuit that you may choose now if you wish. Most landlords will use the money as needed (returning any balance to the tenants) and wait to see whether they're hauled into court.

Q: I'm nearing the end of my year's lease, and have been told by my landlady that I have to be out by the 20th day of the last month. I checked my lease and just realized that this is in there -- on that date of the last month, my lease ends. But I'm supposed to pay full rent for this last month, and my new place isn't available until the first of the following month. Is this legal? --Ashley J.

A: You get the prize for the question of the month -- I've never heard of a landlord using such a clause. Doubtless, your landlady hopes to have your apartment rented by the time you leave, by someone ready to move in 10 days after you depart. She's also assuming that you will leave it clean and undamaged -- or at least clean and tidy enough so that she can have it ready within 10 days. Voila! No lapse in rent payments. That's a pretty nifty scheme.

Alas, your question is also the perfect illustration of the need to read what you sign -- before you sign it. That's because there's nothing illegal in this arrangement. There's nothing wrong with ending your lease before the end of the 12th month, and charging you full fare for that short last month.

Had you noticed this clause before signing, you would have doubtless objected; and at that point, your landlady would have had to choose between changing the clause or losing you and starting all over (hopefully with someone who would not read the lease).

Her decision would doubtless be driven by her experiences and the market -- in a soft market, she might figure that she stands to lose more than 10 days' rent if she starts her search over again; but in a tight market, she might decide that she can get a gullible replacement right away.

This chiding doesn't do you any good now, I realize. If you have nowhere to live for the 10 days until your next rental begins, how about raising that with her? Perhaps she hasn't found someone who is ready to move in on the first. But if she has, think carefully if you decide to stay on anyway.

She may not take the time and expense to file an eviction lawsuit against you, because she knows you will be gone in 10 days, but she will take 10 days' worth of prorated rent out of your security deposit, and may even try to keep some of it to use as compensation for the new tenant who won't be able to move in (whether this last ploy is legal is another matter).

The bottom line for you is that things could get messy. I realize that the cost of storing your belongings and living elsewhere for 10 days is not minor -- it's a heavy price to pay for not reading your lease before you signed it.

Janet Portman is an attorney and managing editor at Nolo. She specializes in landlord/tenant law and is co-author of "Every Landlord's Legal Guide" and "Every Tenant's Legal Guide." She can be reached at janet@inman.com.

Make sure 'companion animal' request is legit

Fri, 23 Jul 2010 00:00:00 -0700

Q: One of my tenants has asked for permission to keep a dog as a "companion animal." He gave me a letter from his doctor, but it's so poorly written that I suspect it's fake, even though it's on a letterhead. This guy also seems perfectly normal to me. How can I challenge the legitimacy of this letter without getting into legal trouble? --William D.

A: When a tenant claims to have a disability and asks for special treatment, landlords are within their rights to ask for documentation of two things: that the tenant legally qualifies as a person with a disability, and that the accommodation sought will enable the tenant to live safely and comfortably in the rental.

(If the tenant's disability and need for the accommodation are obvious -- for example, the tenant uses a wheelchair that won't fit through a doorway -- then landlords should skip the request for proof.)

In the past, this documentation almost always took the form of a letter from a doctor. In recent years, however, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has broadened the acceptable sources of confirmation to include, for example, "third-party professionals." Most often, this term is understood to mean medical professionals.

Landlords are not forbidden from using their common sense when evaluating the documentation a tenant provides. First, however, keep in mind that your impressions of your tenant as "normal" must be put aside. The way this person appears to you is irrelevant. The only evidence you can rely on is what the tenant's doctor, therapist or other professional provides.

It's not difficult to concoct fake letterhead and write a letter purporting to be from a doctor. But there's an easy way to check, first, that this doctor really exists. Doctors are licensed in every state, and the state licensing board will be able to tell you whether someone with this name is licensed.

Most of the time, all you need do is enter the name and see if there's a match in the licensing board's website database. If there's no match, there's no such doctor and you've got your answer.

But what if a doctor by that name exists in your state, and you think the letter-writer simply used his or her name? Here you must tread carefully, because you do not want to be seen as impeding your tenant's request or harassing your tenant. Don't demand another letter or ask to speak personally with the doctor.

It may be reasonable, however, to call the doctor's office, explain who you are and why you are calling, and simply ask for confirmation that the doctor wrote the letter.

Even if the letter is legitimate, you may run up against an objection based on the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), the federal law that protects the privacy of medical information. In that event, consider writing a letter to the doctor, attaching a copy of the letter the tenant provided, and ask for confirmation that the doctor wrote the letter.

If the letter is legit, the doctor should have no problem vouching for its accuracy. But if you've uncovered a scam, you can be sure you'll hear about it, and that the doctor -- whose identity has been stolen, after all -- will be getting in touch with the authorities to look into your tenant.

Q: When I worked in the U.S., I had an apartment with a year's lease, and I got a $200 "concession" when I signed up. Halfway through the lease, my company in Germany transferred me back home, and I had to break the lease. I found a new tenant to take over right away, and the management company approved and signed her up -- for a whole year.

Now the company is telling me that it will deduct the concession from my deposit, because I didn't finish the entire lease term. But the company got a new tenant, and for an additional six months! This doesn't seem fair. --Gertrude K.

A: On first blush, it doesn't seem fair at all. Although you broke the lease, you did the legwork to find an acceptable replacement, saving the management company the time and expense of advertising, showing and handling the turnover. In addition, the company got an extra six months of continual renting.

The company may have incurred some screening expenses in connection with verifying that your offered replacement was appropriate, but that's about it. If challenged, it would probably justify the concession claw-back on that basis.

But the real question is: What did the lease clause say with respect to the concession? If it specified that the concession would be rescinded upon the tenant's unjustified departure, you might be out of luck right there.

A careful tenant in your situation and faced with such a clause would ask management to forgo the claw-back in light of your re-renting success, and would obtain a written agreement to do so. But it doesn't sound like you followed that route.

Though it's a long shot, the concession itself may have been improperly described in the first place. In Illinois, for example, any rent concessions must be described in the lease, in letters not less than one-half inch in height, consisting of the words "Concession Granted," including a memorandum on the margin or across the face of the lease stating the amount or extent and nature of each such concession.

Failure to comply is a misdemeanor in Illinois (765 Ill. Comp. Stat. 730/3).

Avoid discrimination in tenant safety rules

Thu, 08 Jul 2010 00:00:00 -0700

Q: I manage an apartment complex, where we have many families with children. We have large parking lots where kids often ride their bikes. This is an obvious safety hazard, so I've posted a sign saying "Children may not ride bikes in the parking lot." The owner told me to take it down, that it discriminates against kids. Can he be right? --Jackie W.

A: Your owner is right, to a point. But he hasn't taken the next step of showing you how to handle your legitimate safety concerns without creating legal problems, which will be easy to do. Here's the deal.

Landlords may not make rules that are directed at federally designated "protected classes" of people, such as members of a certain religion, race, national origin, familial status, disability and sex. Policies that target children are considered instances of discrimination against families.

State laws frequently add to this list, protecting people based on their marital status, occupation, sexual orientation, and more.

Importantly, the landlord's intent is completely irrelevant. No matter how much good sense it makes to keep kids out of the parking lot, and even though your intent is to protect kids, rather than harm them or deprive them, the fact that your rule singles them out puts you on legally shaky ground.

Happily, solving the problem is as simple as changing your sign. The sign should say, "No bike riding in the parking lot." That way, it's directed at everybody, not just children. Adults ride bikes, too, and you certainly don't want an adult zipping through the parking lot any more than you want a pint-sized rider doing the same.

But wait, you say: The reality is that children are by far the biggest group of parking-lot riders, so doesn't the rewritten rule still have the effect of discriminating against them?

The law has an answer to this. A rule that has the effect of discriminating against a protected group -- even if it's not written that way -- is not necessarily illegal. If the rule is necessary to accomplish a reasonable goal, it will survive a legal challenge.

In this case, you'd have an easy time convincing a fair housing inspector that your goal (avoiding serious accidents) is reasonable, and that prohibiting bikes in the parking lot, though it affects kids more than adults, is necessary to accomplish this goal.

Let's consider another situation in which you might find yourself wondering about the fair housing implications of your policies. Suppose you have a pool rule specifying that children under the age of 14 must be supervised at all times.

You should rewrite it to specify "users" under the age of 14, but because the rule affects only children, you'll still need to make sure that your goal is reasonable and your rule is necessary to achieve it.

As for the goal, that's not too hard -- everyone wants to avoid pool accidents among children. But what about the age you've chosen (the specifics of the rule)? If challenged, you'll need to show that it's reasonable to assume that kids under the age of 14 need the protection of your rule.

The way to do that is to look for objective evidence that will support your rule -- that children all the way up to 14 years old need supervision. Talk to swimming instructors, lifeguards at your local city pool, or contact the Drowning Prevention Foundation. If these professionals can back you up, you should be able to defend your policy.

Q: I live in an apartment community that employs many people as groundskeepers and maintenance workers. I've become friends with one of them, and have learned that he's being paid far less than the minimum wage, doesn't earn overtime, and doesn't get paid vacation or sick time.

I'm sure that at least some of these working conditions are illegal, and I don't like living in a place that's taking advantage of people. Do you have any suggestions on what I can do about it? A lot of these workers appear to be immigrants, and I don't want to get them in trouble. --Nancy D.

A: You're in a difficult position. Your desire to do something for workers whom you think are being exploited may actually backfire, a result they would rather avoid. But that doesn't mean that you can't exert pressure on your landlord in other ways.

First, let's look at what you've observed. All employers must abide by the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (and any state equivalents), which specify minimum wage and overtime requirements. And the FSLA protects employees, whether or not they are legally authorized to work in this country.

But these laws do not require employers to offer paid sick time or vacation (with a few exceptions in, for example, the city of San Francisco and Washington, D.C.).

Unless an employer has an announced policy of paying for sick days and vacation, or a union contract requires it, an employee has no legal grounds for demanding it. So chances are, the most you're looking at here is a violation of minimum wage and overtime laws.

You could, if you chose, report the landlord to the agency in your state that regulates wages and hours, or to the federal Department of Labor. Those offices might investigate, and that investigation might turn up evidence of violations. But will this do the workers any good?

Theoretically, the workers should be awarded back pay, but that's not the end of it. A vengeful employer might choose to retaliate by firing them. Although such retaliation is illegal, the workers might not want to pursue their rights. Their real fear is that their status will come to the attention of the immigration authorities, who could take action.

If you asked the people involved, they might tell you not to jeopardize their jobs and presence in this country.

You might want to consider going right to the landlord and asking about the circumstances of his workers' employment. You might find the door slammed in your face, which will tell you all you need to know.

Alternatively, you could learn that the employer is in fact paying legal wages. Or, you might be told that the only way to contain costs (and keep your rent down) is to hire people for as little as possible.

If the answer you get confirms your suspicions, the best move might be to do just that: move. Your landlord will have lost a good tenant and, if others learn how their pool gets cleaned and lobbies get shined, they too might want nothing to do with it.

If you're dealing with a stubborn landlord, perhaps only a mass exodus will convince him of the need to treat his workers fairly.

Weighing religious freedom vs. rental alterations

Thu, 24 Jun 2010 00:00:00 -0700

Q: My tenants have asked for permission to place a large, conventional religious symbol on their front door. They'd need to screw it into the wood. My leases prohibit alterations without my consent, and I don't want the door disfigured like this. But they say I have to agree because saying "no" will interfere with their right to practice their religion. What do you think? --Maureen B.

A: Your question highlights the tension between a landlord's legal right to prevent physical modifications or alterations to her property and a tenant's desire to exercise her religious beliefs, which may include placing symbols on the landlord's property.

Landlords everywhere have the right to prevent even the slightest physical change to their property, including painting and even nail holes for artwork. Few are so unreasonable to prohibit picture-hanging, but they are within their rights to charge the tenant at the end of the rental term for the cost to cover and paint the holes.

This is just a fact of rental life: Unless a tenant's request to alter the physical structure involves a modification needed by a person with disabilities, the tenant needs to get the landlord's permission. Without it, the landlord has grounds to evict, especially if the alteration is significant.

But does the situation change if the alteration has religious significance to the tenant? Landlords may not adopt policies that are aimed at specific religions, either encouraging or discouraging their practice.

For example, an owner who forbade the wearing of religious symbols or clothing would be a prime candidate for a discrimination complaint (as would a landlord who required such garb); and one who did not allow gatherings of reasonable numbers for prayers would also risk a lawsuit.

But your policy of preventing unauthorized alterations is not aimed at any particular religion, or even at religious practices in general. It's "neutral," in that it applies as much to the tenant who wants to affix a cross or mezuzah as one who wants to hang a self-portrait or a "No Solicitors" sign.

Because the policy is not aimed at religious practices, and assuming you haven't enforced it only when tenants want to install religious items, you are within your rights to apply it evenly to deny every request to alter the physical premises.

This is theory -- now let's get real. You might think about treating this request as you would any that involves alterations. Does the tenant understand that she runs the risk of a deduction from her security deposit if she doesn't repair the door to your satisfaction when she leaves? If the door is high-end and it will be impossible to repair the damage adequately, is she prepared to replace the door?

You might have this conversation and put your understandings in writing. That way, if you need to use the deposit for a new door, the tenant will have very little to argue about.

Q: My husband and I have lived in our apartment for 20 years. When he became disabled, we applied for Section 8 assistance. After two years' wait, we were accepted and got a voucher. But our landlord doesn't want to participate in the Section 8 program. We can't afford the rent without help. Is there any way to force the landlord to accept Section 8 money? --Marissa and Bill

A: Your options will depend on which state you live in. But first, a little background on the Section 8 federal rent subsidy program: When a family becomes eligible for Section 8 assistance, the local public housing authority (PHA) issues them a voucher, which is simply a document describing the program and the steps the housing authority will take to approve a rental selected by the family.

When the family selects a rental, with an owner willing to lease under the program, the family asks the PHA to approve the tenancy. If the rental passes a physical inspection, and the landlord attaches the "Section 8 Addendum" to the lease, the tenancy is created. Tenants pay 30 percent of their income toward the rent; the federal government, through the local housing authority, pays the rest directly to the landlord.

The federal law that established Section 8 does not require landlords to participate in the program. But some states do. In Connecticut, Maryland and Massachusetts, for example, landlords may not refuse to rent to current or new tenants who become or are eligible for Section 8 help.

And in New Jersey, when an existing tenant becomes eligible for Section 8 help, the landlord may not refuse to accept Section 8 money. If you live in one of these states, your landlord's refusal is against the law.

Alas, you may not live in one of these four states. Tenants in positions like yours have used creative arguments to support their theory that the landlord must participate in the program. One such argument is based on the state's ban (if there is one) on discrimination on the basis of "source of income."

Normally, this prohibition prevents a landlord from refusing to rent to someone who receives Supplemental Security Income (SSI) payments, alimony or money from any other legitimate source. Would-be Section 8 tenants can attempt to extend that ban to subsidies to the landlord from the government under Section 8.

An argument of just this kind was recently settled by an appellate court in California, which has a ban on source-of-income discrimination. The court pointed out that the subsidy paid to the landlord was not "income" to the tenant -- it was money that went from the federal government to the local housing authority, and then to the landlord. Simply put, it was the landlord's income, not the tenant's.

The court also looked at the text of the source-of-income law and considered the effect of its language that a landlord was not to be considered a "representative" of the tenant. The Legislature, reasoned the court, was making it crystal clear that a subsidy to the landlord was different than, say, money paid to a tenant's conservator.

In the latter circumstance, a landlord could not legally refuse to rent to a conservatee whose support was channeled through a conservator. But, said the lawmakers, a landlord is no such representative.

One hears lots these days about "activist judges," usually from quarters that disparage tenant rights, but in the California case, the judges were simply doing their job -- applying the clear law that the Legislature wrote. If California's notoriously rancorous state Legislature wants to require participation in Section 8, it can do what other states have done and say so directly.

Who pays contractor when renter skips out?

Thu, 17 Jun 2010 00:00:00 -0700

Q: We rent a single-family house to tenants who have been there for several years. We gave them permission to build a new backyard fence and do some landscaping; they agreed to pay for it. The work was done and finished a month ago, and now we've received a letter from the builder saying that unless he gets paid, he'll slap a lien on our property! To make matters worse, the tenants moved out in the middle of the night and are long gone. --Mike L.

A: The builder is threatening you with a mechanics' lien, which is a legal remedy used by general contractors, subcontractors, and material suppliers to get paid for work they've completed or materials they've supplied. If the workers follow the required steps and you still don't pay, they can force a sale of your home and collect what they are owed from the proceeds.

Mechanics' liens are a very old legal remedy, and they're serious business -- in California, the right to slap a lien on an owner's property is part of the state Constitution. Once a lien is placed on the property, the owner will have great difficulty refinancing or selling the property (these liens are aptly called "clouds on the title"). But in California, and most other states, the right to this drastic step is closely controlled by statute.

Common to most states is the requirement that contractors notify owners that they reserve the right to file a lien if it becomes necessary. Called a "preliminary notice," this notification lets owners know that they must promptly pay up or risk a lien against their property. An owner who has a dispute with a contractor over, say, whether work was done or done right, may dispute the legitimacy of the lien but must usually post a bond to cover the amount in issue.

If you did not receive a preliminary notice, the contractor may still be able to use a lien for work that wasn't paid for. In California, the preliminary notice can be filed after work begins, but will relate only to work done up to 20 days before it was served, and any work going forward.

Most serious contractors file their notices before even beginning work, to capture all of their work on the project. Because you don't mention receiving a preliminary notice, it's doubtful that the contractor can take advantage of his lien remedy because he finished the job more than a month ago. In short, maybe the letter is a hollow threat.

Though you may not face the specter of a lien, the contractor can still sue your tenant for payment. But if your tenant is truly long gone, the contractor won't be able to serve him with notice of the lawsuit. And even if he finds the absconding tenant, the tenant may have no money to pay. The contractor could end up with a judgment that he can't collect on.

If you had nothing to do with negotiations and signed no contract, you may escape being named as a defendant. If I were the contractor, however, and I knew that the tenant could not be found, I'd name you in the lawsuit, too. I'd argue that the work has obviously and materially improved your property, and it's not right for you to enjoy the benefits of the work without paying for it.

A defense on this score would be to say that the improvements were done by an "officious benefactor" (that really is a legal term), or someone who improved your property without your knowledge or consent.

In the circumstances as you've described them, you can't make this argument. You knew of the plan and agreed to it in advance, which puts this defense out of your reach.

There's a lesson here -- one that residential landlords can take from their commercial cousins. A typical commercial lease includes a clause specifying that if the tenant contracts for physical improvements, the tenant promises not to allow any liens to be placed on the property.

In practical terms, this means that a tenant who has a beef with a contractor will need to pay first and argue about the quality of the job later, such as in a court case. To do otherwise would risk a lien against the property (assuming the contractor follows proper procedures, such as filing a timely preliminary notice). Once that happens, the tenant is in breach of his lease and can be evicted.

Q: The ancient stove in our apartment is broken and has been so for several weeks. The owner sent a repairman, who said repairs were more costly than the worth of the unit, but the landlord hasn't replaced it yet. Instead, he gave us his personal toaster oven and an electric hot water kettle! How long must we put up with these substitutions before withholding rent? Our landlord is pleading poverty; we're sick of toast and one-skillet dinners. --John and Martha M.

A: Your problem is pretty straightforward, legally speaking, up to a point. First, there's no denying that a working stove is part of what you're paying for when you pay the rent, and that the landlord is obligated to keep the stove in working order unless its demise is due to your carelessness or intentional misuse.

If the old stove has simply worn out, as you imply, that's part of the "normal wear and tear" that all landlords must deal with. Only occasionally, in single-family rentals particularly, can landlords foist appliance repairs and replacement onto their tenants. Even in those situations, a judge will hesitate to enforce the deal unless its terms were crystal clear and there's no hint of the landlord taking advantage of the tenant.

Your proposed course, however -- to withhold rent -- may not be an available remedy in this situation, even if your state provides for it generally (about one-quarter do not). Rent withholding is designed only for serious problems that threaten your health or safety.

For example, the landlord's refusal to repair a stove that had a leaky pilot light, which exposed you to escaping gas, would justify withholding rent because the likely consequence of not fixing the leak (an explosion or breathing the gas) is unquestionably a serious health matter.

But ironically, a totally dead stove, which poses a huge inconvenience but not a health hazard, will not qualify. In this situation, if you withhold rent, it's the same as not paying the rent, and you'll be inviting a "pay or quit" notice. If you do neither, you'll be headed for an eviction.

If rent withholding isn't an option, what can you do? Many states offer the remedy known as "repair and deduct." This tool often allows tenants to repair defects in the rental that are not only serious health or safety hazards, but lesser problems, too, including broken appliances.

Typically, tenants must give landlords notice in writing and wait a specified amount of time before undertaking the repair. If your state has this remedy, this is the route to go.

Creative penalties for late rent stir debate

Fri, 11 Jun 2010 00:00:00 -0700

Q: I have come up with a way to motivate people to pay their rent on time, and I'm wondering if it's legal. In addition to my late fee, I'd like to say that tenants may not use the laundry facilities or the pool unless they have paid on time. With the summer coming up, this is sure to be an effective motivator. What do you think? --Joe S.

A: Undoubtedly you're right -- faced with the prospect of having to spend their weekends at the Laundromat rather than at the pool party, your tenants might make an extra effort to get the rent in on time. But, your solution, while effective, may not be legal.

Landlords in all but 12 states are prohibited from changing tenants' door locks, shutting off utilities, removing tenants' property, or otherwise engaging in what's known as "self-help evictions." The idea is to force the landlord to use legal eviction procedures rather than resorting to lockouts, theft, and other tactics that can quickly escalate into dangerous and potentially violent encounters.

Sharp readers may see the crack in this argument, however: Self-help eviction bans are intended to prevent landlords from bypassing normal eviction procedures. You, on the other hand, don't want your tardy tenants to leave; your intent is to get them to pay and stay.

And besides, you aren't contemplating anything as drastic as a lock change, utility shutoff, or removal of possessions. You're simply denying access to shared, inessential facilities.

So the question is this: If you live in a state that forbids self-help evictions, would cutting off access to the pool and laundry area be among the acts forbidden by your statute? The only way to know is to look at the law itself. A quick check of two major states yields some surprising results.

In California, a tenant-friendly state, the self-help eviction statute begins like this: "A landlord shall not with intent to terminate the occupancy under any lease or other tenancy ..." (California Civil Code Section 789.3(a).) That's a pretty clear statement that the listed acts are forbidden only when undertaken with the intent to get the tenant to leave.

Arguably, your actions don't fall within the statute because you don't intend to terminate your tenant's lease.

In Texas, a not-so-tenant-friendly state where landlords may even change locks on tenants who are late on the rent in some situations, the statute doesn't even discuss the landlord's intent.

Instead, the statute simply forbids the landlord from doing certain things to "premises leased to a tenant" (Texas Property Code Section 92.0081). In Texas, the issue for your policy would be whether the pool and laundry are part of these "premises leased to a tenant."

They certainly aren't part of the tenant's exclusive space, but a judge might conclude that they are part of the rental because the tenant is paying to use them.

Finally, in both California and Texas, a big question is whether the statutes' list of no-nos is exhaustive or merely illustrative. In other words, suppose the landlord takes actions that aren't specifically mentioned in the statute, like cutting off access to parking.

Would these other steps fall within the ban on self-help evictions? Interestingly, neither statute includes the handy legal phrase, "including but not limited to," which signals that the list isn't intended to cover every possible prohibited act.

If the phrase were there, we'd know that the list is not exhaustive, and that your policy might fall within the statute's reach.

Without this cue, we're forced back on an age-old rule of legal construction called ejusdem generis (in Latin, of course). This isn't as hard to understand as it is to say or spell.

Under this rule, if a list of specific items ends with a general phrase, the general phrase is interpreted to include only items of the same type as the specific terms that preceded it.

For example, if a recipe says, "Use strawberries, blueberries, raspberries, or other summer fruit," the additional summer fruit would need to be a berry, such as a blackberry, and not a stone fruit like a peach -- though any decent cookbook editor would eliminate the chance of confusion by changing "fruit" to "berry."

Applying this rule to the question at hand may help your cause. The list of prohibited acts in a typical self-help eviction statute consists of acts that are directed at the tenant's rented space or his possessions.

You, on the other hand, are proposing to deny access to a shared common space, which doesn't involve the tenant's personal property or ability to use his exclusive rental. In other words, your plan just might work.

Q: I live in a townhouse and had a lease for the first year. When it expired two years ago, I simply stayed here and continued to pay the rent, as a month-to-month tenant. Management is now demanding that I sign a yearlong lease, and if I refuse, I'll have 60 days to move.

But I'm hoping to buy a house within the next several months, and don't want to be saddled with a lease. Can I remain a month-to-month tenant on the grounds that they have waived their right to insist on a lease by allowing me to go month to month? --Tom M.

A: I applaud your creative thinking, and I'm trying to think of a good lawyerly theory that would support it. But try as I might, I can't come up with a solid argument.

When tenants stay on the property after a lease has expired, they become month-to-month tenants if the landlord accepts their presence (usually by cashing the rent check). In most states, the terms and conditions of the lease carry over to what is now an oral monthly rental agreement.

If the landlord wants to end the arrangement, he must give proper notice (30 days in most states). Landlords who give 30-day notices may terminate for any reason as long as it's not discriminatory or retaliatory.

When your landlord demanded that you become a lease-holding tenant, he was following the rules just described. I'm guessing that you live in California, which requires 60 days' termination notice for tenants who have lived on the property for at least a year.

You've been given a heads-up that you're about to get a termination notice, which you can avoid by signing a lease. Without proof of illegal motivation (discrimination or retaliation), your landlord is acting within his rights.

The very reason you want flexibility now is also the reason the landlord wants you locked into a lease. If you buy a house and leave before the lease ends, you'll owe rent for the balance of the lease, minus the rent that the landlord collected (or could have collected, using reasonable efforts) from your replacement.

As the housing market remains cool, and more renters decide to forsake renting for buying, the number of tenants looking for rentals will shrink, so landlords will prefer to lock tenants into a lease for which they will, at least theoretically, be responsible for the entire rent.

And the unfortunate fact is that the landlord ultimately decides whether tenants are monthly or lease-holding, at least in non-rent-control situations.