# Dilemma with rent..



## riridiculous (Mar 1, 2011)

So, I have a dilemma here, regarding an issue with rent. One of our room mates out of 4 (he is on a lease), went to go on an internship out of state during the summer. So he had only paid half the rent since he was leaving in the middle of the month.

So I made up for the other half. The thing is another person was supposed to fill in for him before he had left but they didn't make it due to rescheduled doctor appointments and what not (also lives out of state about 4 hours away). So another month comes around and she still isn't here, so my room mate and I split the costs for the missing roomie.

The thing is he feels he should not have to pay the rent cause he's not living there but he still is under lease, and he was the one that arranged the other person to take his place. He told me that the other money should come from my other room-mates, and so now I'm out $325 and my roomie paid an extra $162... so who should actually make up for the rent?


----------



## 22857 (May 31, 2011)

@_riridiculous_ 
Unfortunately, if he's not living there, I don't think he should have to pay.

I'd suggest finding a new roommate since the other one hasn't shown up and it's been a month. 
Unless you're positive she'll show up REAL soon.

As for the payment for the missing person, a third of it should come from each person staying in the house. As much as that sucks, it's the way life goes and it's the casualties that come with renting with other people.

Edit: On second thought, I'd also suggest trying to convince the initial roommate who's on the internship, to help pay for some of the cost for the missing roommate since his committed person fell through.

So I'd try to work out 1/4 pay from each of the original 4 until a new roommate is found if that's possible.


----------



## 69waystolove (Jun 5, 2011)

I agree, fill that empty spot ASAP. If the girl shows up just tell her she is SOL.


----------



## riridiculous (Mar 1, 2011)

I forgot to include that part, she arrived yesterday. Edit: That was my other thought was everyone to put in 1/4. I think I may try to do that..


----------



## cam3llia (Mar 5, 2011)

Well, if he signed the lease, then it's really his responsibility to pay the rent. It doesn't really have anything to do with you...
The thing with leases is that it really doesn't matter if you're there or not. It sucks that he's paying rent when he's not living there, but it is what it is.


----------



## 22857 (May 31, 2011)

cam3llia said:


> Well, if he signed the lease, then it's really his responsibility to pay the rent. It doesn't really have anything to do with you...
> The thing with leases is that it really doesn't matter if you're there or not. It sucks that he's paying rent when he's not living there, but it is what it is.


Well that's not entirely fair. That's like saying someone who owns a house and is still paying it off has to pay for the renters pay. Which would be the case if there were no renters obviously, but there's people living in the house.


----------



## cam3llia (Mar 5, 2011)

I'm not quite sure I understand your example? Someone who owns the house would not have to pay for the rent because they own the property. 

A lease is a contract between the individual (tenant) and the owner. Therefore the individuals is obligated to pay the owner until the lease expires. From my understanding, third parties (other tenant) are not entitled to get involved.

Are you saying that it's more fair than that other people would have to pay the rent for him just because he signed a lease and they just happen to be in the same house?


----------



## 22857 (May 31, 2011)

I'm not gonna argue


----------



## cam3llia (Mar 5, 2011)

_It's the tenant's roommates responsibility to pay the tenant to pay the owner.

_I'm assuming that the terms of you're referring to our different from the terms that I'm referring to because the ones I'm referring to each tenant is only liable for their room. x.x

Correct me if I'm wrong. But from what you're describing, one person is liable for a whole area and that specific tenant is responsible for collecting the rent of the others and passing that on to the owner?

_They agreed to pay for their portion to live there._

They agreed to pay for their portion, but not someone else's portion.


----------



## 22857 (May 31, 2011)

@_cam3llia_ 
You caught my post before I erased it, damn lol.

Alright, so if the roommates only payed their portion, then the rent would come up short and everyone would get evicted. 
The whole house gets rented and then the leaser will bring in some roommates to help pay. 
This way, instead of the leaser paying 1000$ a month for a place to stay, he/she can bring in 3 other people and each pays 250$.


----------



## cam3llia (Mar 5, 2011)

Um...if the terms in the contact only makes them liable for their room, they wouldn't get evicted because they're not responsible for that?

It's pretty clear that we're describing two different leases with different terms. -.-'''

I'm not sure if you're aware, but there is a type of lease in which one is only liable for their room. x.x


----------



## 22857 (May 31, 2011)

cam3llia said:


> Um...if the terms in the contact only makes them liable for their room, they wouldn't get evicted because they're not responsible for that?
> 
> It's pretty clear that we're describing two different leases with different terms. -.-'''
> 
> I'm not sure if you're aware, but there is a type of lease in which one is only liable for their room. x.x


Lol I understand what you're talking about.
I'm trying to explain to you the situation that the Original Poster is in. 
In his situation, the whole house is being leased, not separate rooms.

Edit: I'm pretty sure this is the scenario at least >.>


----------



## cam3llia (Mar 5, 2011)

But you're simply restating what I said, except using examples. I don't need an explanation, you could have just answered my question and that would have made your post much clearer. x.x

Actually, that doesn't really change the situation. As the OP mentioned a lease, I'm pretty sure that there was some sort of agreement that assumed the person who left responsible for his portion of the rent. 

Anyhow, I stand by what I said. Until he finds a replacement, he should be responsible for the rent regardless of whether he's there or not. It would be unfair to ask the other people to pay more.


----------



## 22857 (May 31, 2011)

@_cam3llia_ 
Okay ^.^ 
But this situation isn't really fair no matter how it unfolds; thus the predicament of life and it's cruel, unyielding, teaching ways of unfairness and so forth...


----------



## cam3llia (Mar 5, 2011)

I think it's pretty fair.


----------



## 22857 (May 31, 2011)

cam3llia said:


> I think it's pretty fair.


Alright, so I thought about it and I wanted to say that it's fair but, I just can't! lol >.< 
Like, I want to just agree with you, but I just can't. 

I mean, instead of looking at the situation as 4 people renting out a piece of the house, think about it like everyone staying in the house needs to pay for electricity and water that they're using. The 4th guy isn't there, he's not using any utilities or even the space. He just happened to be the one legally contracted to the rent. If he wasn't, he could just split (like he did) and the other 3 would have to take over and pay for 1/3 rather than 1/4. 

I know I'm just throwing out examples but what if the person who left the house for an internship wasn't the one who leased it? 
Think about it like that, 4 people are renting the house and one person HAD to take responsibility for the title of leaser.


----------



## cam3llia (Mar 5, 2011)

But the point is that he made an agreement and therefore it's his responsibility to put up with the consequences.

Let me put it this way. It's not about whether he's taking up the space (physically), it's about the fact that because of the lease the space belongs to him. Alternatively, someone else could be taking up the space, but they can't, because it's still his. 

And if he split, do you think it would be fair for the other people? If they don't find someone, they would be stuck paying for a room they didn't ask for.


----------



## 22857 (May 31, 2011)

cam3llia said:


> But the point is that he made an agreement and therefore it's his responsibility to put up with the consequences.
> 
> Let me put it this way. It's not about whether he's taking up the space (physically), it's about the fact that because of the lease the space belongs to him. Alternatively, someone else could be taking up the space, but they can't, because it's still his.
> 
> And if he split, do you think it would be fair for the other people? If they don't find someone, they would be stuck paying for a room they didn't ask for.


They could move out if they wanted to. 
Also the leaser could have stopped paying and the people living there would be out of a house, not the leaser.
They're all depended on each other really.


----------



## yesiknowbut (Oct 25, 2009)

If he's signed the lease he is liable in law. Surely?

Agree, I guess the answer depends on whether he holds the lease for the whole house and you are there on his lease, or whether you all have a separate contract.

I probably wouldn't stay friends with someone who did this to me, though. It's a lot of money to land you with, with no fault of your own. At the VERY least he should pay a proportion of the missing month when the girl he arranged to come didn't turn up.Or make her pay.....


----------



## cam3llia (Mar 5, 2011)

I'm sure that even between the people living there, there's some sort of formal/informal agreement.

Actually, the leaser can't stopped paying (assuming that he's liable for the whole house) because he's bound by law to pay. x.x

_They could move out if they wanted to. 

_What you're saying is completely absurd. Why should they have to move out and find a different place because he didn't hold up to his end of his agreement?

Point is he made an agreement, therefore he should take responsibility for it. That to me, is perfectly, fair. Whether it's an informal/formal agreement, if an individual accepts it, they should be liable for it. 

No one else should have to be responsible for another individual's actions or circumstances.


----------

