Hi -- longtime lurker here, apologies for the length in advance but need some advice

My wife and 1 y/o sold our house in April and moved to a different suburb in DFW into a rental home to let the market cool off.

The rental home has visible foundation issues (doors not closing, large cracks in the exterior, front entryway issues) and we submitted a maintenance request 1 month ago. The management company sent out a company to measure and we were told by the inspector that it required significant work in the interior of the home.

My wife is due with our second in one month and over the past 2 weeks we've tried to get ahold of the management company to know where things stand with the potential repair. Nobody has responded to our emails other than to pass us along to someone else. The phone number puts you immediately on hold and hangs up after 5 mins.

We also learned today the home was not registered with the city.

Given the lack of communication about a major repair + no registration with the city, do we have the justification for breaking the lease without having to buyout the rest of the contract?


Thanks!

Read your lease. There *should* be provisions in it relating to maintenance requests and the landlord's obligations to provide maintenance. There should also be provisions that determine what happens if the landlord is in default, but some landlords use leases that don't specify how to deal with a landlord in default.

This is not legal advice

In Texas, issues that are vague or not specifically addressed in a lease are often decided in favor of the tenant. However, you also need to consult the Texas Property Code, which addresses default of landlords and remedies available to tenants. Typically the requirement is for maintenance to be completed within a "reasonable" time period. "Reasonable" is not defined.

Under most circumstances, if you have documented your requests for maintenance, the landlord's acknowledgment of your requests, promises to fulfill the request, and failure to do so, then the landlord can probably be determined to be in default and you are entitled to be released from the lease and compensated for damages.

You can also contact the City Code Enforcement office to have them come out to determine if the building is safe to occupy. If the building is not safe to occupy, then you will be required to vacate and could probably make a force majeure claim to terminate the lease and potentially seek compensation for the cost of relocating. If the building was built without permits, about the worst the City will do is put a hard hold on it so that no more permits can be sold until the property owner remedies the permit issue.

Ultimately it comes down to how you want to deal with the landlord. It could be as simple as telling them directly what your concerns are and asking to have the lease canceled so you can move on with your life elsewhere or as complicated as having to take them to court. If you find yourself needing to take the landlord to court, the best way to do that inexpensively is to file in Justice (JP) Court. JPs handle lease cases all day long and are used to litigants representing themselves.

To add more to this, the questions of reasonable time period is probably also related to the question of whether or not you have any loss of enjoyment of the property.

Here are some examples:

• You have a sticky door that doesn't necessarily affect you, except as a relatively minor nuisance,
• A broken toilet in a home with only one bathroom prevents you from maintaining basic sanitation, and
• A broken range means you can't use it to cook, but maybe you have a microwave available

Each of these examples will have a different period of time that is considered reasonable based on the impact they have on your daily life and activities on the property.

That being said, you might want to objectively evaluate how, specifically, the problems affect you. If the foundation movement cracks the walls, that might not be an issue that warrants immediate repair, but if the cracks allow pests to enter the home or if they prevent the exterior doors from latching and/or locking, that's a much different sense of urgency that changes what is considered "reasonable."

Lol -- by being cute and having a nursery that helped show how to use the rooms in the house

The city we live in requires all landlords to register the rental property and have an inspection done each time the property changes tenants.

Called the City Inspector since that was the next step in the Tenant Law handbook and they said the house wasn't even registered, so they are now contacting the company to get that process started.

Thank you for all the guidance on this post and the one above it!

We have a door to the backyard that won't open and the front door has significant gaps in it that allows bugs and AC out.

We have started a list of all the things that materially impact our ability to live in the home and will send those over to the company soon. The city inspector is going to come out soon as well to let us know if the property is still livable.

Ultimately we just need to decide if it's worth the hassle to create a legal matter out of this. The JP note was helpful in that!

As a landlord, I've always included a termination for convenience clause in my leases to make life easier for me and the tenant. Generally I tell the tenant they can let me know they want out, and if I can list and lease the unit within 60 days they're off the hook for the lease. If I can't then they have to keep paying rent until I find a replacement tenant.

Personally, I think this is something every tenant should negotiate with a landlord because **** happens and life gets in the way.

Quote:

---

Generally I tell the tenant they can let me know they want out, and if I can list and lease the unit within 60 days they're off the hook for the lease. If I can't then they have to keep paying rent until I find a replacement tenant.

---

What's the point of "60 days"? Why not just say they have to pay rent until you can find a new tenant.

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Quote:

---

Generally I tell the tenant they can let me know they want out, and if I can list and lease the unit within 60 days they're off the hook for the lease. If I can't then they have to keep paying rent until I find a replacement tenant.

---

What's the point of "60 days"? Why not just say they have to pay rent until you can find a new tenant.

---

They have to provide at least 60 days notice. Sorry that wasn't articulated better.

I can see the tenant wanting to negotiate that but don't see any reason for a landlord to agree to it on the lease.

If a scenario comes up where it makes sense to let them break the lease, then you can always agree to it then. No need to memorialize it.

Diggity said:

---

I can see the tenant wanting to negotiate that but don't see any reason for a landlord to agree to it on the lease.

If a scenario comes up where it makes sense to let them break the lease, then you can always agree to it then. No need to memorialize it.

---

I told my tenant that just wanted to break the lease that they would also have to cover the cost of me renting it again. I think that was the deal breaker for them.

In most locales the rental market is still hot. If your bothered by these little things, and the landlord is not very responsive, then negotiate with the landlord on breaking the lease.

I own 19 rental units and generally if a tenant will give me 30-60 days notice i will release them from their lease as long as they are cooperative about showing it to new tenants. I will charge them their deposit, but in most cases they are breaking the lease for their convenience not because there is something wrong with the unit.

If you have genuine safety concerns, (external doors not opening at all) then cry safety issues and that is usually enough for the landlord to fix or release you from the contract. A crack in the wall or sticking doors/window is not considered a safety issue in most cases. If you are not willing to give up your deposit then live with the problem as it will either cost you more to go to court or cost you more stress than it is really worth.

Unless you have lived there a long time the problem probably existed when you moved in and you might not have much of a leg to stand on unless you noted the issue soon after move in. Most landlords have seen every kind of complaint and know which ones are valid or not. I would rather rid myself of a problem tenant than keep them on board.

Quote:

---

I would rather rid myself of a problem tenant than keep them on board.

---

Sometimes it just doesn't work out & it's best to move on - for BOTH parties.

Diggity said:

---

I can see the tenant wanting to negotiate that but don't see any reason for a landlord to agree to it on the lease.

If a scenario comes up where it makes sense to let them break the lease, then you can always agree to it then. No need to memorialize it.

---

The real underlying reason I put that in my leases is that in return I also got a termination for convenience clause for me. If someone just turned out to be a bad tenant I could boot them for whatever reason or no reason at all without having to go through an eviction. I invoked the clause several times for tenants who consistently paid late, kept the place dirty, or were a general nuisance.

I guess if you're dying to have a hair trigger to boot your tenants.

With late payments, you don't need the convenience clause as it's already in the lease.

It's not that I have a hair trigger to boot tenants.. Lord knows the hassle of reletting isn't worth going through more than absolutely necessary. A tenant who is consistently very filthy (like Hoarders filthy) is going to cause more wear and tear and damage that costs more in the long-run, so sometimes the cost of reletting is worth it.

As for late payments, if a tenant is consistently late but still pays, it's very hard to evict them for that reason alone. Eviction timelines in Texas are very specific and tenants who consistently pay late tend to know what those timelines look like.

I'm no lawyer, but I would imagine you would have the same issue with your convenience clause if they don't play along though.

Diggity said:

---

I'm no lawyer, but I would imagine you would have the same issue with your convenience clause if they don't play along though.

---

My leases were vetted by an attorney.

So a tenant loses all rights when they sign your lease?

If they believe that, then that's helpful, but if they decide to challenge that clause, you would have the same headache.

Diggity said:

---

So a tenant loses all rights when they sign your lease?

---

No.

You're likely making a lot of false assumptions here.

So you can terminate a lease for convenience and they are on the street 60 days later?

terradactylexpress said:

---

So you can terminate a lease for convenience and they are on the street 60 days later?

---

Yes, but it will cost me a half month's rent and possibly more to do it. The early termination fee is the same for both tenant and owner.

Here's the exact language I use:

Quote:

---

31. TERMINATION FOR CONVENIENCE.

Either party to this Residential Lease Agreement may terminate this Agreement for convenience, with a minimum sixty (60) days written notice. If proper notice is not given, the terms and conditions of the full Agreement shall remain in place and will be applied through the end of the original term of the Agreement.

TERMINATION BY RESIDENT. If the Agreement is terminated at the convenience of the Resident, the Resident will pay an early termination fee equivalent to one-half of one month's rent upon notice of termination. Resident remains responsible for paying rent on time through the remainder of the lease through the noticed termination date. The Security Deposit will not be applied in lieu of the last month's rent or the early termination fee. If any discount has been applied to the rental rate as a result of the length of the agreed lease term, resident will be responsible for repayment of any applied discount not later than 30 days prior to move out.

TERMINATION BY OWNER. If the Agreement is terminated at the convenience of the Owner, the Owner will pay an early termination fee equivalent to one-half of one month's rent upon notice of termination and will remain responsible for all repairs and maintenance through the remainder of the lease through the noticed termination date. The Resident will not be entitled to any discounts on rent or other compensation for such termination. Owner will be responsible for payment of any early termination fees for tenant utility accounts that result from such termination.

---

terradactylexpress said:

---

Interesting, there's no way in hell I'd agree to that as a renter. Have you seen any pushback on that clause?

---

No. I've never had a renter who didn't like the ability to get out of their lease at any time, even if it meant an extra cost or that I could do the same. A couple have taken advantage of the clause. Y'all make it sound like I'm booting tenants left and right, whcih is not the case.

Seems pretty standard here in Nashville to have a 60 day escape clause.
Only in college Station did I find contracts that would let you leave if job or something else took you away.

My thoughts too, this is the equivalent of a NFL contract imo. Gives the owner tons of outs to kick you out for more money etc. which puts the renter in a bad spot, having to scramble to find a new home, pay movers etc

terradactylexpress said:

---

My thoughts too, this is the equivalent of a NFL contract imo. Gives the owner tons of outs to kick you out for more money etc. which puts the renter in a bad spot, having to scramble to find a new home, pay movers etc

---

No one forced them to rent from me and I never had a problem finding tenants.