most people who rent have no intention to move out but expect the contract to be renewed. in some jurisdictions this is even enforced by law. so they are not changing the deal unilaterally. in fact the landlord who wants the renter to move out is the one who is unilaterally changing the deal.
> most people who rent have no intention to move out but expect the contract to be renewed
What this expectation is based on? You can't just "expect" other people to act for your benefit.
> in some jurisdictions this is even enforced by law
These jurisdictions likely have constant problems with their rental market, unless it's captured by the state or similar entity. It would be very strange for a willing person to enter a contract which essentially deprives them of control of their property forever.
> so they are not changing the deal unilaterally
Yes they are, unless their rental contract specifies that they are entitled to rent this property forever. I have not seen any such contract so far.
> in fact the landlord who wants the renter to move out is the one who is unilaterally changing the deal.
Again, this is not true unless the contract specifically promises the renter that they are entitled to be renting forever - which usually is not the case, and I am not sure why would any landlord sign such contract and lose the control of their property forever.
You can't just "expect" other people to act for your benefit.
at least german law says otherwise.
and see my other comment. i have never rented with an expectation to move out.
It would be very strange for a willing person to enter a contract which essentially deprives them of control of their property forever.
if the purpose of the property is to be rented out then what more control do you need?
you can terminate a lease if they fail to pay rent or destroy your property, or if you need it for your own family. but why would you want to terminate a lease otherwise? to raise the rent for the next tenant? that's just greed.
unless their rental contract specifies that they are entitled to rent this property forever. I have not seen any such contract so far.
in germany such contracts are the law. no other form of contract is valid unless it is a short term rental for a vacation home or something like that.
I am not sure why would any landlord sign such contract and lose the control of their property
> i have never rented with an expectation to move out.
Wait, you always rent with the expectation to stay in that place forever, until you die, and never move? That's certainly an unusual way of doing things. In the US, average renal duration is just above 2 years, and I have heard about people moving many times, so certainly you must be aware even if you do not intend to ever move, other people do that?
> if the purpose of the property is to be rented out then what more control do you need
Why do you think you can determine the purpose of the property that does not belong to you, once and forever?
> why would you want to terminate a lease otherwise
Why it's any of your business?
> welcome to germany.
Thanks, I'll pass, for one more reason in the otherwise very, very long list of reasons.
it does say that the needs of the tenants almost always outweigh the needs of the owner.
you always rent with the expectation to stay in that place forever, until you die, and never move?
why does undetermined time to stay always have to imply that i'll stay there until i die?
i rent with the expectation that i can stay there as long as i want, and renew as many times as i want, until my life circumstances change. i never have a moving out date in mind. where i am now i might stay 1 year, 5 years, 10 years. i have no idea. the expectation is that i am the one to choose when i move out and noone else.
Why do you think you can determine the purpose of the property that does not belong to you, once and forever?
i don't. the german law does however. the majority of people in germany live in rental properties. so if you build a rental property, it better remain a rental property and nothing else. that's what you got permission and maybe even subsidies for. because the country needs more rental properties. and this is one way to achieve that. by giving tenants the right to rent the same place as long as they need. the exceptions for the owner to change that are very limited and need to be in the interest of the community. you can terminate a lease in order to use the property for your family. but that is pretty much the only exception. and even that can be limited if the tenant would loose their job if they had to move or would be forced to send the kids to another school. both are considered highly disruptive and against the interest of society, so tenants are protected from that. as long as the tenant is in such a situation you have no chance of getting them out. germany does this in order to provide stability for families and the community.
Why it's any of your business?
again, not mine, but the governments. by forcing a tenant to move you are acting against the interests of the community.
Thanks, I'll pass
there are many reasons not to want to live in germany. i don't live there either for reasons, but tenant protection is not one of them
i have never once rented a place with a specific date in mind when i would move out again. it was always: we'll stay here until life circumstances force us to move, which may well be never. when we moved within the same city, it was always because the landlord forced us to and never because we wanted to (well, except once to get closer to our sons school). my grandmother lived in her home from her 20s until she passed away some 60 years later. and i believe before that her aunt lived there. and now my mother. and eventually me or someone else from our family will move in so we can continue the lease of this same apartment that has been rented by our family for probably close to a century. my dad lives in his current home for more than 40 years now. i am the odd one out in my family, having traveled so much that i have never lived more than a few years in the same place.
So, the point is it's ok for one side to want to continue the contract forever, or to exit it anytime they want, for any reason they want - but it's not ok for the other side to have the same freedom? Why is that?
while moving out at the end of a lease was a possibility, it was never suggested that it was the expectation. on the contrary. generally the expectation was that we'd stay. most landlords we met favored long term tenants.
of course not for the rest of their lives. i don't even know where that sentiment comes from. the original argument was about the claim that a tenant wanting to renew a lease is unilaterally changing the agreement with the landlord. and that is simply not true. the expectation almost always is that a lease will be renewed, and if a landlord doesn't want to renew they are the ones going against expectations.
a landlord not renewing the lease has certainly happened to us. mostly i think it was because they wanted to sell the apartment. but this was never expected at the time we moved in. if we had known in advance we would have found another place. in germany btw, terminating a lease in order to sell is also illegal. the buyer of an apartment has to continue the lease. they may then only terminate it if they can prove that they need the apartment for themselves.
>i don't even know where that sentiment comes from.
I introduced when I said I dont know anyone who expected to be in a rental for the rest of their lives. This is support for the idea that the contracts in the US are expected to be terminatable by either party at will. You then countered with stories of family that never left and statements like the following:
"most people who rent have no intention to move out but expect the contract to be renewed."
"we'll stay here until life circumstances force us to move, which may well be never."
>the original argument was about the claim that a tenant wanting to renew a lease is unilaterally changing the agreement with the landlord. and that is simply not true.
If the agreement is that renting continues as long as both parties are happy, and either party can end it after a minimum time, for no special cost. If someone agrees to that contract, then refuses to let the other party terminate after the minimum time, that is changing the contract.
If someone signs a contract saying they will leave whenever asked, then later refuses to leave without a payment, that is clearly changing the agreement.
If the agreement is that renting continues as long as both parties are happy, and either party can end it after a minimum time, for no special cost. If someone agrees to that contract, then refuses to let the other party terminate after the minimum time, that is changing the contract.
ok, putting it explicit like that i kind of agree. but i don't see the example from the story in that way. the tenant had a clear expectation that they could stay, and the landlord knew that. they got blindsided by the landlord wanting them to move out because regardless of the actual contract they signed, the tenant clearly wasn't in the position to be able to simply move.
situations like this are the reason why this is actually illegal in germany. being forced to move always creates a hardship for the tenant, and the laws are made to protect against that.
I think the difference in emotional responses you and I have is largely dependent on the backstory that we are filling in.
I'm more biased to believe or assume a malicious or incompetent tenant, and you are more inclined to assume a malicious landlord.
You think they are being blindsided, and I think they've been given a minimum of 2 months notice. There are no facts about the reason for non-renewal in the article. Maybe the tenant is knocking holes in the walls or the owner is moving in.
Like I said, our differences is probably colored by our experiences. I've seen people making 200k a year extort 50K cash for keys simply because they can and it's cheaper than an eviction. I've seen other tenants demand similar amounts to move out because they are doing 100K of damage per year and they know it's cheaper to pay them off.
actually, i am not assuming that anyone is malicious here, and i am observing that even without anyone being at fault, the lack of tenant protection puts the tenant at a disadvantage. and that disadvantage is what i intended to address.
if a tenant is malicious then none of this discussion is even relevant, because we no longer need to consider the expectations of the tenant. if they damaged the property, sue them to get them to pay for the fix, or do whatever you need to make the problem go away.
but if they are just a harmless nuisance, well then, tough luck. until the landlord provides a good reason for the eviction, i'll side with the tenant. have you had to find an apartment to rent on short notice before? two months is not enough. i'd need half a year.
Most tenants are judgement proof, so there is no legal remedy. That is to say, there is no legal recourse and compensation avenue available. landlords are lucky if they can get possession of their property back intact.
However, I agree that this is a distinct topic than no-cause eviction. The two intersect in that cash for keys is a common remedy for both situations.
I think there are valid practical arguments that can be made for legally barring no-cause evictions or extending notice.
The main point I was attempting to debate was the reasonableness of demanding cash-for-keys under a legal framework that explicitly allows no-cause eviction, and both parties have contractually agreed to no-fault eviction (and no-fault move out).
This is largely because I believe in honoring my commitments, even if I could profit through breaking them or lying.
> the original argument was about the claim that a tenant wanting to renew a lease is unilaterally changing the agreement with the landlord.
No, the argument was that the tenant that refuses to move out when the landlord does not want to rent to them anymore, after the original contract has expired, unless the landlord pays them off, is unilaterally changing the agreement with the landlord.
The agreement with the landlord consists of the lease/rental contract, the law, and other unspoken expectations of both parties.
Some times more things are spelled out (lease contracts that have built-in price changes; for example I've seen ones that basically auto-renew every year, with an optional x% increase on the landlord's side, which usually but not always is taken), sometimes they aren't.
You can even agree to things that aren't allowed by law; both sides just never bother reporting it (this is one of those unwritten things you find from time to time).
Usually a tenant "unilaterally changing the agreement" is just falling back on the tenant protection laws to their advantage. Savvy landlords know the laws and how to work with them, inexperienced landlords get caught out (often because all the tenants before have never used them).
