Posted by Tenantnet on July 30, 1997 at 20:27:18:
In Reply to: Guarantors liability posted by Mark on July 30, 1997 at 19:50:56:
: I was just in a position to take an apt that I loved. Although I felt I could afford the lease, I did not meet the rather unreal requirement of having an income of 48 times the monthly rent. In anticipation of this problem I had asked my uncle if he would act as a guarantor, which he agreed to do. The problem was that the management company would not accept guarantors, so my broker suggested that my uncle simply fill out the lease application as if he was going to be the tenant. The broker also said that at the time of the lease signing a letter would be affixed to the lease stating that I would be the one occupying the apt. This seemed to be a rather circuitous way of guaranteeing the place but it seemed OK to me. My uncle on the other hand was concerned about the legality and his liability. So my question is, Is there a difference in liability between acting as guarantor vs. being the person on the lease itself?
: Thanks in advance for any and all responses. Please feel free to email any responses.
Laws on this may vary from state to state, but as long as they don't discriminate
based on things like race, sex, etc., I think landlords can set income
standards, especially as they are an indicator of the prospective tenant's
ability to make lease payments. As for guarantor, well ask yourself -- what
does the word mean? My reading is that your uncle or whoever is taking
on the responsibility for making lease payments. I would be hesitant, even
with a relative. Of course the landlord can see through your scheme and the
reason they probably did not want to accept the guarantor in the first place
would be the resulting difficulty in collecting. They might feel a little better
with your uncle's name on the lease, but it would be still harder to collect
from your uncle than from you yourself. Your uncle's responsibility would be
the same -- he would be responsible for the rent if you could not or would not
make payments. This is not a legal analysis, just my take on it.
Note: Posting is disabled in all archives
Post a Followup