Update on the issue

The couple agreed to do 66-33 share on the rent and the utilities . It turns out that, only the guy's name (the other person - not my friend) is on the lease. The couple did make a mistake by not asking him to put their names on the lease.
Now, at the end of the 7th month, the management is asking to vacate the room as they have some maintenance issues and is giving incentive for moving out. When it comes to sharing the incentive, this guy says that since the lease is on his name, it is his right and he will keep it.

Now, How would you respond in this situation?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This was my earlier post ......Thank you very much for sharing your opinions !

This may not be the right forum to discuss this issue but I'd like to know how a sane nepali would/should respond in this situation.

This happened to my friends - a couple. They moved in with a nepali in a 2 bed 2 bath sharing all the costs (fifty-fifty). He stays in 1 of the bedroom with attached bath and cooks and utilize every commodity in the kitchen and living room. The couple stays in the other bedroom and uses the restroom in the living room. Everything was fine till the end of 2nd month. On the 3rd month, this person says he will only pay 33% of rent and utilites. His reason - We are 3 people so we should equally share the cost.

How logical is his reason? How will you respond if you were the couple in the situation? Since defaming a nepali by another nepali is not a logical option for the couple, they want to settle the issue amicably by dialogue but do not know how the thing work here in US.

wakkadikkathuikka

Since the incentive is to move out, it should be shared to both parties. Legally leasee is right that he will get the money because lease is only his name. But morally, humanly and ethically Leasee is stupid. Money is incentive for moving out. Is 'nt that both parties need to move out ? Of course it must be shared between both parties. Be a Neapaleeeese---------Show solidarity to fellow Nepali

I Think , i know you guys.......... are you guys from LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA ?

IT SHOULD NOT BE PROBLEM , ALL OF YOU ARE WELL EDUCATED. YOU GUYS COULD SOLVE THIS ISSUE BY YOUR OWN RATHER THAN................................

Heared rumor!!!! Now all over U.S.A. and NEPAL. .......WE ALL THINK.... WHAT IS GOING ON ?

MONEY IS NOT EVERYTHING, IT COMES AND GOES BUT FREINDSHIP STAYS FOREVR. PLEASE DO NOT LOOSE TRUST ON FREINDSHIIP FOR DOLLAR.

" PLEASE DO NOT LOOSE TRUST ON FREINDSHIIP FOR DOLLAR "~ wow , standing oviation for you Guchha. Yea money is only a paper, come n go, Void selfish and shall tha land lord merit an incentives y dont mercy ur friend sum courtesy...

Guchha,

Thank you very much for your response.
I already mentioned in my post that my friend thinks that defamation of one nepali by another nepali should not happen, no matter how bad the situation is. If I mention the true location of the situation, I'd be defaming the person, but I want to tell you that your guess is wrong at this point.

I posted this issues here to let everybody 'think' what any other 'sane' nepali would respond in certain situations if you just 'think' your way.

Thanks,

Wakka, it seems like this is a never ending issue. I suggest your friends to move out and forget about the other guy for good.

long beach sucks ass...

wakka,
i think legally that single guy has a winning case. Just ask your frens (couple) to move out and take this experience under the belt and move on...thats the only option I see

Wrt the first case (1/3 - 2/3 split), both parties SHOULD (morally, ethically) do a 1/3-2/3 split of the incentive money, simply because both parties face the inconvenience of having to move out prematurely. However, the lease holder has the upper hand LEGALLY. If your friend feels strongly about this, he can simply deduct the incentive from the rent payment for the last month's rent. That way, the copule ends up getting the incentive payment at the end anyway. (Dont do this if you still have a few months left, because the lease holder could evict them earlier) The lease-holder can't do anything legally to your friend, because your friend's name does not appear on any lease. The best solution, though will be to simply discuss this like grown up adults, and point out to the lease-holder that everyone suffers from having to move out early, so everyone should share the incentive payment. If you cannot appeal to this guy's sense of what's right and what's wrong, try the tactic that I mentiond.

Second case
Since the contract is in the name of lease holder, he is the one LEGALLY obligated to come up with the monthly payments, your friends (the couple) in theory can refuse the pay a single dime more. On the other hand, the lease-holder might threaten to evict them out of the apartment. This is a hassle for everone involved (including the lease-holder), and the lease-holder could lose monthly rent for the remaining months, and incur legal fees, so this is not optimal for him either. Again, the best strategy would be to disucss this amicably. the couple should say that they not are capable of making the higher payments, and that the agreement on the 1/3 - 2/3 split was why they moved in to begin with. If discussion does not help, pay the amount that the opportunistic fu*k wants now, and when you have two months left, stop paying the rent, so that you end up averaging the 1/3 total.

Keep all your records of payments (e.g. checks made out to the lease-holder, utililty payements, mail addressed to you, etc.)

I changed my mind about the second case.

After a nice amicable chat, dont pay a cent more than the 1/3 you agreed to earlier. Seeking eviction is too much of a hassle for the guy anyway, so he's got nothing on you. The couple has the upper hand. Let us know how it works out.

Legally, the guy can take the incentive, but the couple are not bound to pay the rent.
Morally, the guy shares the incentive, and couple pay the rent too.