Q. I may be heading into a contested eviction and wonder if I should settle. These tenants went to a local nonprofit agency that handles fair housing and accused me of discrimination. The nonprofit didn’t pursue it, and I terminated the tenancy. Now they’re claiming that I retaliated against them. What do you think?
In most states, landlords may terminate month-to-month tenancies for any reason that is not discriminatory or retaliatory (only Georgia, Louisiana, Missouri, North Dakota, Oklahoma and Wyoming have no anti-retaliation laws).
A. Anti-retaliation laws typically protect tenants against termination or other acts intended to punish them for exercising a tenant right, such as withholding rent; forming or being involved with a tenant organization; or complaining in good faith to the landlord or a government agency in charge of enforcing tenant or housing rights.
Some laws presume that the landlord’s motive was retaliatory if the negative action came within a specified time after the protected activity (such as six months), but allow the landlord to rebut this presumption by offering evidence to the contrary.
Assuming your state has an anti-retaliation law, you’ll have to read it carefully and, perhaps, consult the calendar if it includes a “presumption of retaliation” time period.
And if your state protects tenants who complain to “government agencies,” you’ll need to read that part with particular care. Some statutes clearly state that only complaints to a governmental body come within the statute’s protection.
For example, the Illinois law refers solely to complaints to “any governmental authority.” Virginia similarly refers to a “government agency.” California makes clear that “agencies” include only those that issue citations or conduct inspections (private nonprofit bodies do neither).
But Texas (not known for pro-tenant laws) states that good faith complaints to “a governmental entity responsible for enforcing building or housing codes, a public utility, or a civic or nonprofit agency” will be protected.
If your state follows the Texas example, and the tenants’ complaint was made in good faith within a presumption-of-retaliation period, you may be required to prove that your motive was not retaliatory.
A cautious landlord may choose to wait out the presumption window, but that doesn’t prevent your tenants from claiming that you acted in retaliation for their complaint. It simply means that they will have to present evidence and prove this defense rather than taking advantage of the presumption, which requires you to prove that you didn’t retaliate.
Q. I have been renting an apartment in the same complex for several years. When my first lease expired, we wrote on it, “Extended to (date),” and did the same for a couple of years. I’ve learned that new residents are paying less for the same type of unit. Is that legal?
A. When a lease expires and tenants want to stay on, landlords often do as yours did: extend the lease for another year.
Although extending the lease without reviewing it is convenient, it has a major drawback: Neither side is alerted to think about the terms, as you would if you were seeing them for the first time.
The most important clause in the lease is, of course, the rent. The question for both you and the landlord is whether the rent, set one year ago or many years ago, still reflects the going rate for similar rentals in your neighborhood. If the market has cooled or heated up, renewal time is when you or the landlord should discuss changing the rent.
More Top Picks Best Golf Balls For High Handicappers
I’m guessing that you did not raise the issue when the lease was extended. If similar units are renting for less, this means the market has cooled . But, unfortunately, there’s nothing you can do about it until the lease is up.
Is this unfair? I don’t think so. When you signed the lease, you were locking in the rent for an entire year, which would have become a sweet deal for you if the market for units like yours had heated up. In that case, the landlord would be the loser. But you also take the chance that the opposite will happen, and you’ll end up paying more than the newcomer next door. That’s the essence of a contract: Each party takes a risk in exchange for the certainty that the deal will last.