california residential-lease tenant
Can you be held accountable for rent after you&#39;re off the lease?
<p>In California, there's a lease with three people on it (call them X, Y, and Z) and the landlord (L), with six months remaining on the lease. Y, Z, and L agree to release X from the lease. Y and Z do this by signing a form that says the following:</p>
<blockquote>
<ol>
<li><p>Unless otherwise stated, all terms and conditions of the prior lease... shall remain true and in effect.</p>
</li>
<li><p>By signing this Extension, effective of [<strong>insert date</strong>] X relinquishes all claim
of possession on the Premises and of any held security deposit. The landlord, Y, and Z agree to relinquish X from any obligation regarding the lease as mentioned above. Y, Z, and the landlord remain otherwise bound by all provisions as embodied in the lease as mentioned above.</p>
</li>
</ol>
</blockquote>
<p>Now, suppose there were prior electronic conversations in which X unequivocally agreed to pay for the next six months of &quot;X's part of rent&quot; (even when he's not on the lease) in exchange for Y and Z (landlord is not part of the conversation) agreeing to remove X from the lease.</p>
<p>And then X reneged on that offer by refusing to pay once the modification document (the last two paragraphs) was signed. <strong>Can Y and Z sue X in small claims for the &quot;unpaid X's part of rent&quot; <em>after</em> the [insert date]?</strong> And can Y and Z sue X in small claims before the [insert date] for what's effectively a reneged future rent?</p>

<p>You can be held liable for rent after you are off a lease. Rewriting a lease only affects future obligations, and doesn't extinguish past obligations. However, you appear to have released X from all obligations via paragraph 2. If you plan to sue for past rent, the court will have to interpret the statement that &quot;The landlord, Y, and Z agree to <em>relinquish X from any obligation</em> regarding the lease as mentioned above&quot;, which is non-standard English. It is extremely likely that the court will interpret this to mean &quot;release&quot;.</p>
<p>You might argue, using earlier emails, that all parties had a clear understanding that this means &quot;from all future obligations, but not past obligations&quot;, but that is not what the written agreement says, and the parol evidence rule, which is codified as <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/3474830.pdf" rel="noreferrer">explicit law in California</a>, says</p>
<blockquote>
<p>execution of a contract in writing... supersedes all the negotiations
or stipulations concerning its matter which preceded or accompanied
the execution of the instrument</p>
</blockquote>
<p>That clause lets X off the hook, in exchange for his claim on the security deposit and for relinquishing his tenant rights to the unit. You cannot sue X for any rent.</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Can Y and Z sue X for the &quot;unpaid rent&quot; after the [insert date]?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>No. The lease is a contract between landlord <em>L</em> on one end and tenants <em>X</em>, <em>Y</em>, and <em>Z</em> on the other end. The amendment merely modifies the latter to <em>Y</em> and <em>Z</em>. This is even clearer if the contract contains provisions such as &quot;<em>tenants are severally-and-jointly liable to the landlord in the event of breach</em>&quot;.</p>
<p>It is unclear who were the participants in the &quot;prior electronic conversations&quot; and whether the terms thereof support or constitute a <em>basic assumption</em> that prompted <em>Y</em> and <em>Z</em> to sign the amendment with <em>L</em>. Depending on the details of those conversations, they might or might not constitute a <em>separate contract</em> between <em>X</em> on one end and <em>Y</em> and <em>Z</em> on the other. Unless <em>L</em> is mentioned as beneficiary in that separate contract, <em>L</em> has no role in it and therefore <em>X</em> cannot be held accountable to <em>L</em>.</p>
<p>The premise that <em>X</em> cannot be held accountable to <em>L</em> pursuant to those communications implies that <em>X</em> cannot be held accountable for rent in particular. Only <em>Y</em> and <em>Z</em> would have standing to seek enforcement of that separate contract, but that does not modify whatsoever the amended obligation <em>Y</em> and <em>Z</em> have toward <em>L</em>.</p>
<p>If for whatever reason the electronic conversations are not tantamount to a contract, the chances to find <em>X</em> liable to <em>Y</em> and <em>Z</em> are much lower. <em>Y</em> and <em>Z</em> would need to prove the element of &quot;basic assumption&quot;, which is very unlikely because <em>Y</em>'s &amp; <em>Z</em>'s belief seemingly falls short of being reasonable reliance toward releasing <em>X</em> from the lease.</p>

<h2>The signed contract captures intent of 3 parties.</h2>
<p>In sequence of time:</p>
<p>#1 there were electronic conversations that were capturable.<br />
#2 ????<br />
#3 A contract was signed, on paper, in ink, amongst all parties <strong>contradicting</strong> #1.</p>
<p>You can drag both documents into court <em>if you really want to</em>... but a court will look at the dates, and it'll be an easy call.  <strong>The court will infer that #2 exists</strong>, and it consists of conversations among parties which changed everyone's mind on #1.  There is no other possible explanation for Y and Z signing contract #3.</p>
<h2>Here is the smoking gun phrase:</h2>
<blockquote>
<p>Y, and Z agree to relinquish X from any obligation regarding the lease</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Wow, that's pretty clear.  Y, Z and L all have stake in X fulfilling the lease terms, but they <em>explicitly</em> let X off the hook.</p>
<p>Now you protest &quot;Oh, that's out of context/ambiguous!&quot;  Righto. Ambiguities in contracts tend to be interpreted <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contra_proferentem" rel="nofollow noreferrer">against the writer of the contract</a>, because it's the writer's job to be clear. If parties didn't <em>mean to say that</em>, they could/should have used other phrasing.</p>
<p>Further, the phrase is unnecessary for the purpose of placing Y and Z on a lease with L.  Why is X even mentioned? Again the only possible interpretation is the contract writers intended to let X off the hook.</p>
