Paramount Apartments (Related Management) vs Brady Mason (Former almost Tenant) for Breach of Lease Agreement:
Paramount Apartments at 680 Mission St, San Francisco, CA is suing me for $2,642 plus my $1000 deposit plus interest at 10% per annum (not sure what bank they are using to justify that high of interest now?) back to April 10, 2009 for breaking a lease agreement - which I did 2 weeks prior to move-in because I lost my job and could not afford to remain in San Francisco with out employment...
Here is a brief description of what transpired between myself and Paramount Apartments back in the Spring of 2009:
Sunday, March 8, 2009:
I signed a 6-month lease to move in on April 10th with Paramount Apartments at 680 Mission Street, San Francisco, CA 94105.
Friday, March 27, 2009:
I lost my job, and decided against staying in San Francisco (as I could not afford the $2500/month rent with out a salary)
Saturday, March 28, 2009:
I went to the Paramount leasing office, and told the leasing agent about my situation and decision not to rent the apartment...
The leasing agent wanted me to sign a document with the title "Skip Lease Agreement" - which obligated me to pay 2-1/2 months rent plus my $1000 deposit - which amounted to something around $7250...!
I was so shocked and appalled at the gaul of the Paramount leasing staff to try and get me to cough up that outrageous amount of money on an apartment I never even lived in - it was truly unbelievable in my opinion - so I refused to sign it!
Which started an argument - them claiming that unless I signed the "Skip Lease" document - Paramount could not put the apartment back on the market, and I would be liable for the entire amount of the 6-month lease - a little bit more than $16,000 (Rent at $2,530 x 6 + $1000 deposit)
They were trying to coerce me into signing a document that would give them over $7K on an apartment I had never even occupied! Needless to say, I accused them of using duress and taking an unfair advantage of my job loss situation, then walked out without signing the "Skip Lease" document.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009:
I received an email from the leasing agent with a different "Skip Lease Agreement" document - this one had no mention of the 2-1/2 month plus deposit penalty - but still included costs not applicable to my situation - like cost to clean, paint, and repair damages - because I never moved into that apartment! So why should I be liable for those types of costs?
In addition this new document (now called a "Lease Termination Agreement") had the most onerous and one-sided verbage I had ever encountered! here are a few paragraphs from it:
1. "Tenant agrees that Tenant may not apply the Security Deposit, if any, held by the Owner, toward any
of Tenant's obligations as provided herein."
2. "Owner will attempt to find a new acceptable tenant for the apartment, but it is expressly understood by
the parties hereto, that Owner is not obligated to do so. Nothing contained herein shall be construed as
an agreement by Owner to act as Tenant's agent in procuring a new tenant."
3. "Each of the parties acknowledge that this Agreement is fair and a reasonable Agreement and is not the
result of any fraud, duress, coercion, pressure, harassment or undue influence exercised by either party."
Who in their right mind (and in my situation) would sign a document with contract language like this?
The first paragraph basically means the $1000 deposit I gave Paramount is just free money that I handed over to them without any recourse that it be applied towards my debt to them...! Are you kidding me?
The second paragraph gives Paramount the right to not even attempt to find a new tenant for the apartment - thus leaving me on the hook for the entire lease term! Again - Are you seriously kidding me?
The third paragraph is absolutely unbelievable! Give me a break - there is nothing fair or reasonable in this document! And given that Paramount's leasing agent has already resorted to the use of duress, coercion, and undue influence on me - Why would I sign this document?
Thursday, April 2th, 2009:
I responded to the email from Paramount's leasing agent - containing the above quoted - again stating my refusal to sign the document provided.
Tuesday, April 7th, 2009:
The Paramount leasing agent replies to my email - now retracting the requirement to sign the "Lease Termination Agreement" and stating that a simple written statement from me indicating my decision not to rent the apartment would suffice - and they would then attempt to rent the apartment to someone else.
I responded to the leasing agents email with the suggested statement - stating my reason for not renting the apartment - releasing any claim I had to the apartment - so they could start advertising for a new tenant.
The Paramount leasing agent responded back to me that my quit claim statement was accepted by her district manager - and that they would do their b read more