Is it lawful to restrict the number of co-signers in a lease?

 From a question that got censored on Law Stack Exchange:

My lease in NJ, USA, is ending soon and my roommate is moving out. The landlord says that in order to sign a new lease I would have to sign it alone. I have lived here for 2 years now with my old roommate, not a single delinquent payment or major issue. I cannot afford to pay twice as much rent at the moment.

Is landlord's new requirement lawful?

Yes, it is lawful. Landlord's new requirement is within his freedom of contract. It does not seem to be in conflict with New Jersey current legislation on landlord-tenant matters.

The condition as formulated here only restricts the number of landlord's counterparties. For instance, the landlord's intent might be to preempt risks and costs inherent to suing/evicting multiple tenants or litigating matters of joint-and-several liability. The new requirement could backfire from an economical standpoint if the only signer defaults on his payments, but that does not affect the lawfulness of that requirement. The fact that hitherto the landlord-tenant(s) relationship has been good does not preclude the possibility of disputes in the future.

This scenario does not clarify whether or not the tenant will be allowed to sublease the unit. Reducing the number of tenants signing a lease does not imply reducing the number of people allowed to live there. Hence it is important to pay attention to whether the terms of the new lease clarify this issue.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

30-day or 60-day notice of resignation

Questions of practical interest are the ones that tend to get improperly censored on the Law site of Stack Exchange. One of those questions is about employment contracts. The post did not provide the language of the contract, but the scenario can be paraphrased as follows: My current employment contract requires me to provide a 30-day notice if I decide to resign. This contract will expire in 45 days, but I already signed a one-year renewal that increases to 60 days the requisite notice of resignation. I need to quit because I just got a better job. Given the overlap of these clauses, does the requirement of 60-day notice already apply? Some relevant information is missing, which this time precludes an assertive answer. For an assessment of contract issues it is crucial to know the exact terms of the relevant clauses. This time one can only provide some examples of what to watch out for in these contracts. The renewal agreement might contain a language akin to " This agreement sup...
Read more

Interrogatory or subpoena on a witness

On Law StackExchange a litigant in pro per outlined the following scenario. Unfortunately his post got censored there, that being the fate of many interesting, practical inquiries. "I have sued a California mobile-home park LLC for breach of contract and a couple of additional issues. The park manager's failure to properly and lawfully manage the park (which I told the real estate company that owns the park about) are the reason for the suit. She is mentioned as part of the problem, but she is not named as a defendant. Now I need to request discovery from her, but I'm not sure if she is a "party to the action" whom I should give an interrogatory--or a non-party witness whom I would subpoena information from. Is employee manager a party to the action?" Regarding your claim of breach of contract, the only entity to be named as defendant is the one with which you entered the contract. Your contract is with the company, whether it is the LLC or --if different-- ...
Read more

Non-stretch of non-compete

 A contractor and company C agreed to the following clause titled "Non Solicitation Covenant": Contractor will not enter into or attempt to enter into (on Contractor's own behalf or on behalf of any other person or entity) a business relationship to provide the delivery of consulting services to any company or entity that: (i) was identified to Contractor by Company, as a Customer or Partner of Company, or (ii) was sold any of Company's software or services by Company. Company C used to have a customer A, whose owner created an entirely different business B. The extent of C's incompetence or misconduct prompted A to stop doing business with company C. B has never had a relationship with company C. The contractor met A's/B's owner by virtue of contractor's business relation with company C, and that owner has asked the contractor to do a project for B. The question is whether it is lawful for the contractor to accept B's request to do business with h...
Read more