Why can a landlord obtain an eviction in court if the tenant offeredrent before the notice to quit expired?

After serving a 60-day notice to quit, the landlord refuses to accept the tenants rent “before” the notice to quit expired (for erroneous non-related reasons). The landlord then files a UD, where the court enters a judgment against the tenant for non-paid rent. If the tenant offered rent in good faith as due, why are they punished by the court with a judgment then effecting their future rental ability and credit? It sounds like if you paid for the merchandise before you left the store, then why are you being arrested for shoplifting.

Asked on August 21, 2011 California

Answers:

M.T.G., Member, New York Bar / FreeAdvice Contributing Attorney

Answered 9 years ago | Contributor

Your analogy is quite good.  But the real issue here is that the landlord wanted you out of the apartment for what ever the reason (you intimate that they want you out for non rent related reasons, correct?).  So if the landlord wanted you out then he can not accept the rent after he serves the notice to quit and must start an eviction proceeding to legally be allowed to re-enter the apartment. I am assuming that you are on a month to month tenancy and do not have a lease, correct?  I can surely understand how this can be upsetting to you especially with regards to your credit.  But if he wanted repossession this is the legal way for him to get it.  Good luck.


IMPORTANT NOTICE: The Answer(s) provided above are for general information only. The attorney providing the answer was not serving as the attorney for the person submitting the question or in any attorney-client relationship with such person. Laws may vary from state to state, and sometimes change. Tiny variations in the facts, or a fact not set forth in a question, often can change a legal outcome or an attorney's conclusion. Although AttorneyPages.com has verified the attorney was admitted to practice law in at least one jurisdiction, he or she may not be authorized to practice law in the jurisdiction referred to in the question, nor is he or she necessarily experienced in the area of the law involved. Unlike the information in the Answer(s) above, upon which you should NOT rely, for personal advice you can rely upon we suggest you retain an attorney to represent you.