LLa - tell me how much trouble this will cause

[Devedander]

Well you are right that they say same city and new base is 3 hours from previous base, if we are going to go on what we think the OP means then you can argue that if they have to move based on drive distance, then it's farther to the new base than the old or they would not move. That means that the new base is over half of 3 hours away which is over 1.5 hours. Again in 1.5 hours you gotta go more than 35 miles.

But enough speculation, OP how far is the new base from yoru current house?

 

[queenofsand]

south says: "The OP talks about staying in Town"

I know.


They have orders to another base. It's further than 35 miles from where they currently live. It doesn't matter that it's the same town. It matters that it's a completely different assignment at a completely different base, a total and complete PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION move that is covered by SCRA and FL statutes.

Since I don't have the specifics on Chili's location, I'll use Pensacola as an example. There are 5 military installations there. He's stationed at X NAS; they live x miles from that duty station. He gets orders to Z Field; their current address is 35.01 miles or more from Z Field. They can terminate based simply on the fact that their address is outside the specified limit AND he's got PCS orders.

I don't know why you refuse to accept what's been presented as law. SCRA says NOTHING about mileage and town. It's based on PCS orders with more than 90 days on station. FL law uses PCS orders and 35 miles to justify termination...Chili says they meet those requirements.

 

[south]

It would not make any difference if the new base is on the planet Mars they are not moving from the town they currently live in.

The OP has cleary stated wait until they find out blah blah blah.

If the OP really wants to use the law then he should simply just say I need to move near the new base and never tell the landlord he is moving up the road.

Well you are right that they say same city and new base is 3 hours from previous base, if we are going to go on what we think the OP means then you can argue that if they have to move based on drive distance, then it's farther to the new base than the old or they would not move. That means that the new base is over half of 3 hours away which is over 1.5 hours. Again in 1.5 hours you gotta go more than 35 miles.

But enough speculation, OP how far is the new base from yoru current house?

 

[south]

And so is their current base more than 35 miles away...

Your forgeting the big picture they are not moving from their current town they are moving up the road but want to use the law as an angle to break the lease, off course they will need to lie and say they are moving more than 35 miles away.

This is nothing more than they want to move up the road they will be no closer to the new base, simply save us a lot of posting time and just tell the landlord you need to move right next to the new base.

south says: "The OP talks about staying in Town"

I know.


They have orders to another base. It's further than 35 miles from where they currently live. It doesn't matter that it's the same town. It matters that it's a completely different assignment at a completely different base, a total and complete PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION move that is covered by SCRA and FL statutes.

Since I don't have the specifics on Chili's location, I'll use Pensacola as an example. There are 5 military installations there. He's stationed at X NAS; they live x miles from that duty station. He gets orders to Z Field; their current address is 35.01 miles or more from Z Field. They can terminate based simply on the fact that their address is outside the specified limit AND he's got PCS orders.

I don't know why you refuse to accept what's been presented as law. SCRA says NOTHING about mileage and town. It's based on PCS orders with more than 90 days on station. FL law uses PCS orders and 35 miles to justify termination...Chili says they meet those requirements.

 

[Devedander]

Remaining in the same city does not necessarily mean you cannot also move 35 miles. Also they new base may be 50 miles from their current home, they can move 38 miles away and then be only 12 miles from base. Again all speculation until the OP comes along and lets us know the situation.

I did make a mistake above, we need to know how far the new residence is from the old, not how far the new base is.

 

[queenofsand]

I'm a raging insomniac this morning, so I'm still here.

I'm looking at the big picture and it doesn't have the word TOWN in it. The location of their current duty station is irrelevant. The location of their present residence to the current duty station is irrelevant. FL state law mentions 35 miles from their current rental location to the new duty station. The only question that needs an answer is: how far is Chili's current residence from the NEW duty station? If it's over 35 miles...they can terminate their lease.

I don't give serious thought to the 'wait until they find out blah blah blah' comment. There's not a tenant alive who's lived under the regime of a crappy landlord who doesn't fantasize about legally winning a skirmish now and then.

 

[south]

No one is disputing he cannot get out of the lease; you are pulling straws right now.

The real post should be I want out of my lease and I am not moving anywhere but up the road in the same town because I need to look after some kids where the mother does not want custody anymore and there is no room in my current place.

What you are doing is trying to turn a post into an innocent move, read the post again it is all about getting out of a lease there is nothing innocent about it so stop pretending there is.

I could not give a shi# what the OP does but lets not turn the guy into a tenant angel when his post clearly states wait until they find out we are not even leaving town, he wants out because he wants more people to move in and there is no room, if this was all legitimate mileage distance, military move etc then it would not even be posted here it would be a simple I have new orders and need to move end of story not about pulling the wool over the landlords eyes.

OP’s QUOTES:

If you think they're going to flip over being presented with last minute orders, just wait until they find out we're not even leaving town. Very Clever

He recently re-enlisted and, yes, we were aware we would be getting new orders.

The husband's ex-wife called three days ago. Because of a dire emergency, she no longer wants custody of their three children

The rental company does not own larger units which would accommodate our increased number So they were happy to live where they are if they could have got a bigger unit

Explained to me by another landlord as 'two heartbeats per bedroom, with allowance for infant or small pet'

Our lease is not up until December

Remaining in the same city does not necessarily mean you cannot also move 35 miles. Also they new base may be 50 miles from their current home, they can move 38 miles away and then be only 12 miles from base. Again all speculation until the OP comes along and lets us know the situation.

I did make a mistake above, we need to know how far the new residence is from the old, not how far the new base is.

 

[Who's Liable?]

Like what was stated before by most of us, but South refuses to accept is:

As long as the base is more then 35 miles away from his current locatoin, he can use the clause to terminate his lease.

The clause does NOT state anything in regards to denying a move if the person(s) live in the same town/city/village, it only states allowing a person(s) to move if they live more the a certain amount of DISTANCE.

A poitn which South refuses to acknowledge...

 

[south]

No one is disputing they cannot get out of the lease... They should not even bothered asking for a bigger unit with the same crappy landlord for their children as this move closer to a new base was so needed.

And as for the word TOWN in it read the OP first post here is the line with TOWN in it.

If you think they're going to flip over being presented with last minute orders, just wait until they find out we're not even leaving town.

It sounds like the landlord is crappy because he cannot accomadate an extra three kids that the tenants WANTED to move in, but who knows they want to stay in TOWN and the military excuse will get them out of the lease that should have had the military clause added if nothing else to warn the landlord of possibilities otherwise his units turn from year to year into any minute.

I'm a raging insomniac this morning, so I'm still here.

I'm looking at the big picture and it doesn't have the word TOWN in it.
I don't give serious thought to the 'wait until they find out blah blah blah' comment. There's not a tenant alive who's lived under the regime of a crappy landlord who doesn't fantasize about legally winning a skirmish now and then.

 

[south]

Err Who's Liable I have all ready accepted he can get out of the lease a point you refuse to acknowledge.

Like what was stated before by most of us, but South refuses to accept is:

As long as the base is more then 35 miles away from his current locatoin, he can use the clause to terminate his lease.

The clause does NOT state anything in regards to denying a move if the person(s) live in the same town/city/village, it only states allowing a person(s) to move if they live more the a certain amount of DISTANCE.

A poitn which South refuses to acknowledge...

 

[Who's Liable?]

No one is disputing they cannot get out of the lease... They should not even bothered asking for a bigger unit for their children as this move closer was so needed.

And as for the word TOWN in it read the OP first post here is the line with TOWN in it.

If you think they're going to flip over being presented with last minute orders, just wait until they find out we're not even leaving town.

It sounds like the landlord is crappy because he cannot accomadate an extra three kids that the tenants WANTED to move in, but who knows they want to stay in TOWN and the military excuse will get them out of the lease that should have had the military clause added if nothing else to warn the landlord of possibilities otherwise his units turn from year to year into any second.

If you're trying to blame the tenant for not putting the state statute in the lease, the blame should go to the LL. It is HIS responsibility to make sure the lease is written in such a fashion as to protect himself. It is NOT the tenants responsibility to make sure the LL has a good lease. When was the last time you heard of a prospective tenant bringing a lease to a future LL to have him sign it?

And as stated before, A state statute(no matter what it is) does NOT need to be added to a lease to be enforceable. and AGAIN, it is the LL responsibility to make sure that they(LL) have a lease that covers themselves well...

 

[ChiliPalmer]

South, where do you live that a three hour drive is "just up the road"? Time to trade in the Yugo, my man. Do you have any idea how large this TOWN is? Full marks for persistence in the face of adversity, though, even if it is a bit quixotic.

According to Mapquest, it's 53.7 miles from my current place of residence to the new duty station's front gates. Mapquest may be full of it though; all I know for sure and certain is that it's a three hour drive. We're headed there today so I'll check the odometer and report back what the car clocks it as.

As tro the rental company "flipping out" (to quote myself) we're talking about a company that has thus far demonstrated a healthy lack of concern for state law or anything written in the lease. I put relevant links in the OP to illustrate this. If you would like a recap: They claim the right to enter my home at will, for any reason and at any time, and insist that the lease trumps state law in this regard. They have yet to fulfill the offer of free rent we got with the signing of a lease, despite the exact free dates being spelled out in the lease. The lease states that the rental company pays for water and sewer, yet management is trying very, very hard to convince us that we're responsible for paying water and sewer, and that the lease stating, "Sewer paid by [X] Management" is a big ol' misunderstanding.

So yes, I see no reason to anticipate this going smoothly when they see the lease and state law as merely helpful guidelines to be considered if it suits them. That is my main concern here: how shall I approach them when they have a long history of disregarding what is both legally and contractually proper.

But yes, South is absolutely, positively correct in one thing. We want to break our lease. We've been given orders that mean a three hour commute each way, and we certainly don't adore our rental company so much that this sounds in the slightest appealing (gas prices and wear and tear on the cars aside). We also find ourselves suddenly requiring a larger home and the rental company cannot provide this, so even if the rental company were the loveliest people EVER and driving six hours every day was our idea of a ROLLICKING GOOD TIME, we would still consider a move. So if South wants to see us as bad, bad people because we can legally break our lease and will likely do just that, then such is his right.

 

[south]

No Mr Liable I am not blaming the tenant he wanted an out of his lease he used the military clause for Florida congratulations to him.

As it states in most places anyone in the military should get it added to the lease but that is neither here nor there for Florida, so I will travel right now to Florida and help him with his move across the road if that would satisfy.

If you're trying to blame the tenant for not putting the state statute in the lease, the blame should go to the LL. It is HIS responsibility to make sure the lease is written in such a fashion as to protect himself. It is NOT the tenants responsibility to make sure the LL has a good lease. When was the last time you heard of a prospective tenant bringing a lease to a future LL to have him sign it?

And as stated before, A state statute(no matter what it is) does NOT need to be added to a lease to be enforceable. and AGAIN, it is the LL responsibility to make sure that they(LL) have a lease that covers themselves well...

 

[south]

Congratulations you are in a state that enforces the clause, I can only by go your original post and the way it was written, now you add some more things below I would have wanted out the lease as well even if I was moving across the road especially the free rent bit that would have pissed me of if they went back on the move in deal, but there again most move in deals are only valid if you stay for the full duration of the lease.

Let us know what they say on Monday...

South, where do you live that a three hour drive is "just up the road"? Time to trade in the Yugo, my man. Do you have any idea how large this TOWN is? Full marks for persistence in the face of adversity, though, even if it is a bit quixotic.

According to Mapquest, it's 53.7 miles from my current place of residence to the new duty station's front gates. Mapquest may be full of it though; all I know for sure and certain is that it's a three hour drive. We're headed there today so I'll check the odometer and report back what the car clocks it as.

As tro the rental company "flipping out" (to quote myself) we're talking about a company that has thus far demonstrated a healthy lack of concern for state law or anything written in the lease. I put relevant links in the OP to illustrate this. If you would like a recap: They claim the right to enter my home at will, for any reason and at any time, and insist that the lease trumps state law in this regard. They have yet to fulfill the offer of free rent we got with the signing of a lease, despite the exact free dates being spelled out in the lease. The lease states that the rental company pays for water and sewer, yet management is trying very, very hard to convince us that we're responsible for paying water and sewer, and that the lease stating, "Sewer paid by [X] Management" is a big ol' misunderstanding.

So yes, I see no reason to anticipate this going smoothly when they see the lease and state law as merely helpful guidelines to be considered if it suits them. That is my main concern here: how shall I approach them when they have a long history of disregarding what is both legally and contractually proper.

But yes, South is absolutely, positively correct in one thing. We want to break our lease. We've been given orders that mean a three hour commute each way, and we certainly don't adore our rental company so much that this sounds in the slightest appealing (gas prices and wear and tear on the cars aside). We also find ourselves suddenly requiring a larger home and the rental company cannot provide this, so even if the rental company were the loveliest people EVER and driving six hours every day was our idea of a ROLLICKING GOOD TIME, we would still consider a move. So if South wants to see us as bad, bad people because we can legally break our lease and will likely do just that, then such is his right.

 

[ENASNI]

hmm

This is much more entertaining than the cartoons on TeeVee.