Addendum I To The Lease Agreement Between: Fill & Download for Free

A2AYou really have two issues here, and you really need to think strongly about them.The best time to have thought of this was when you were drafting your lease in the first place.Typically, you can not tack on charges that are not in the lease, although you are permitted to bill for services and damages outside the norm. These are not rent, they are non-refundable fees.For example, if your tenant flushes diapers or other sanitary items down the toilet, and it backs up and floods an area, thus requiring carpet cleaning: you take care of the problem to fix the damage to your property and prevent additional damage as quickly as possible. And then the tenant gets a bill.Additional guests represent two problems.Additional people using the property for a short period can mean problems for yourself, or for neighbors.Parking is a good example, but it’s pretty common for people to “show their guests a good time”, and that can mean additional noise, use of common areas by the guests (for example: if you have a pool), denial of use by other residents of common areas not scaled for guests (perhaps you have an on site fitness room), and so on.If you are covering water for the units, then additional use of water can be an issue. The same for other covered utilities: more people = more use of utilities.These cost you potentially real problems, including loss of good will from other tenants — and you should be compensated for the increased costs.This is typically handled by establishing a “guest fee” in the lease.This also tends to discourage illegal practices, such as the guest violating their lease by subletting, when there is a no subletting clause, or renting out their spare bedroom on AirBNB for a short term rental without paying hotel taxes to the city (which will then come to the landlord with their demand for payment or fines, not the tenant), and so on.So if you plan ahead when drafting the lease: there is a “guest fee” in the lease, and you are not raising the rent.Most leases either have a clause like this, or they have a “no unapproved visitors” clause, or they have a “no guests” clause.In almost every jurisdiction in the U.S., after 30 days these people are no longer guests, they are your tenants.This is a much, much bigger problem.It’s called “establishing tenancy”, and at that point, if you want them gone, you have to go through the normal legal process for eviction in your jurisdiction.Further, they have the same rights as any other tenant, even though they pay no rent.Now you have a major, major problem that will potentially cost you a huge amount of money.So in general, if it’s in the lease as a fee: charge it. It’s fair. It’s right.Anecdote time.There’s an interesting case in San Francisco in a unit where a tenant had been present for a very long time. The landlord was selling the place, and wanted to go out of business.When this happens, the tenants, after some time, are entitled to relocation costs. However, for a unit with multiple tenants, these costs accrue from the time the first tenant moved into the unit.A 60 day notice was served.So a tenant who’d been there for a while acquired two “roommates”, and didn’t notify the landlord. After 30 days, the roommates were tenants.The landlord was required to pay 3 relocation costs — one for each roommate — rather than the single relocation cost they would have had to pay, had they had a properly written guesting and notification requirement in the lease.So it can cost you real money.Additionally, there’s the problem of a tenant pulling in new people, converting them to tenants, and then abandoning the tenancy. If you accept rent payment from the new people, that’s a tacit agreement to allow them to take over the lease.This is the primary reason I do not accept electronic payments via debit or credit card.So a guy had his bum of a brother come live with him. He then moves out, after the bum is a tenant, leaving him enough money to cover rent for a couple months.But the guy is a bum, and he’s not going to be able to pay rent after that. And he has nothing better to do than to show up in court and argue against the eviction. They guy is experienced, because he’s burned through all of his other relatives the same way.Congratulations, go are looking at maybe 90–120 days to get the guy the heck out of your unit — 4 months — during which time the bum pays no rent. And when he’s not in court, he’s trashing the unit.Think Michael Keaton in Pacific Heights (film).You really, really do not want months-long visitors with your tenants, unless they become a party to the lease.You don’t want it.Ever.Is it fair to raise the rent?If it’s a month-to-month rental, and sufficient notice was given, yes, it is.Is it fair to charge a guest fee?Is it already in the lease? Then yes, it is.Is it fair to limit the time a guest may stay, in order to avoid them legally becoming a tenant?Yes. Unless there’s contravening language in the lease, becoming a tenant without a legal agreement constitutes “squatting”.Is it fair to have a “no guests policy”, and then impose any restrictions you want on the tenant, if they request to have guests?Yes, it is. This is a side agreement between the guest and the landlord.Questions like this are why you should have professional help, such as a real estate or landlord/tenant attorney, when you are first drawing up your lease.Note: If your lease would ordinarily prohibit guests, you have options:Draw up a lease modification addendum with a guest fee clause, for the tenant to sign off on. It’s not a rent increase.Negotiate a rent increase in exchange for a more lenient guest policy. This is a lease modification on rental terms.Don’t let the guests stay.Pretty straight forward.If you have any more questions, check with your local landlord’s association. Alternately, talk to a real estate or landlord/tenant attorney.

You’ve gotten 2 really terrible answers on here, one that is ok….Since, I am a landlord in a college town, who has dealt with roommate changes during leases, and at lease ends like this probably 100 times, let me explain:You need off the lease, otherwise, years from now when the other two don’t pay, move out with damages, etc, you will still be a responsible party.Your landlord needs you off the lease for the same reasons.The simplest way to do this would be with an addendum to the lease, signed by everyone, your roommates that are staying, you, the landlord, that the lease is now only between a b and c, that d is no longer a part of the agreement. Further, it would need to say that you are no longer responsible for any damages to the apartment, and that the roommates have paid you back for your deposit.

According to international law, as well as Soviet and Russian Federation treaties and agreements, all objective evidence supports the truth that Crimea was legally part of Ukraine. Russia’s actions were a clear, indisputable violation of international law and bilateral agreements freely entered into by the Russian Federation. Even Vladimir Putin acknowledged this through most of his time as president/prime minister, or whatever title he is currently giving to his rule as Tsar of Russia.Russia can chose to violate agreements, but they can’t make those agreements simply disappear like some Russian critic of the government.In illegally annexing Ukrainian Crimea Putin violated Russian and Soviet international treaties, as well as agreements with Ukraine. Annexing Crimea was a violation of 80 different international agreements and 407 bilateral agreements with Ukraine, all of which Russia entered into voluntarily. The number of violations are too numerous to list here, but let’s just look at a representative sample.Both Soviet Russia and Ukraine are founding signatories of the United Nations Charter. Article 2(4) of the UN Charter prohibits threats or use of force against another state.After the Russian annexation, the U.N. General Assembly approved a resolution affirming Ukraine’s territorial integrity and calling the referendum that led to Russia’s annexation of its Crimean Peninsula illegal. One hundred nations supported the resolution. Only 11 opposed it.This isn’t a minor technicality involving some convoluted legal agreement. Russia’s annexation is a violation of the fundamental cornerstone of international law.It also violated Soviet and Russian law. In 1954 the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet legally transferred Crimea to Ukraine. That Crimea was Ukrainian was a recognized fact in the Soviet Union for 37 years, and by the Russian Federation for 23 years.For 60 years the leadership in the Kremlin, including Vladimir Putin, acknowledged Ukrainian Crimea. They could have easily taken Crimea at any time over those six decades but did not.Finally, the illegal annexation violated bilateral agreements between Ukraine and Russia. After the dissolution of the U.S.S.R. the two countries signed the Treaty on Friendship, Cooperation, and Partnership between Ukraine and the Russian Federation; the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances; the Agreement between Ukraine and the Russian Federation on the Status and Conditions of Presence of the Black Sea Fleet of the Russian Federation in the Territory of Ukraine; as well as of the Agreement between the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine and the Government of the Russian Federation on the Use of Airspace of Ukraine and of Airspace Over the Black Sea, and many more bilateral agreements.All these agreements, freely entered into by Russia, affirmed that Crimea is Ukrainian.From the Budapest memorandum, signed by Russia in 1994:1. The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the CSCE Final Act, to respect the Independence and Sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine.2. The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, and that none of their weapons will ever be used against Ukraine except in self-defense or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.The Budapest Memorandum is only one of the many treaties with Ukraine which Russia has broken by illegally annexing the Crimean peninsula and occupying part of Ukraine’s Donbass region. In 1997 both countries signed the Russia-Ukraine Friendship Treaty. At the signing ceremony in Kyiv the Russian president said, “I vow at this sacred place, at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, that the treaty that we sign today will be fulfilled…We respect and honor the territorial integrity of Ukraine.”Russia entered into agreements with Ukraine, presumably in good faith, which acknowledged Crimea was Ukrainian.Russia freely signed the Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation, and Partnership with Ukraine in May 1997, in which Russia recognized Ukraine's borders and sovereignty over Crimea.Russia signed three other treaties with Ukraine regarding Crimea on May 28, 1997 (The agreement between the Russian Federation and Ukraine on the Parameters of the Division of the Black Sea Fleet, the agreement between the Russian Federation and Ukraine on the Status and Conditions of the Presence of the Russian Federation Black Sea Fleet on the territory of Ukraine and agreement between the Government of the Russian Federation and the Government of Ukraine on Payments Associated with the Division of the Black Sea Fleet and Its Presence on the territory of Ukraine) in which Russia agreed to "respect the sovereignty of Ukraine, honor its legislation and preclude interference in the internal affairs of Ukraine"?Russia freely signed the Agreement between Ukraine and Russia on the Black Sea Fleet in Ukraine, widely referred to as the Kharkiv Pact, in which Russia agreed to lease naval facilities in Crimea from Ukraine until 2042? Why would Russia need to lease facilities in Crimea from Ukraine if they believed Crimea was Russian?Crimea was a part of Ukraine when all those agreements were signed. Nowhere did Russia ask for an addendum or wording in the many treaties and agreements it signed saying, “except Crimea.”Russian apologists CAN NOT DENY Russia signed these agreements. When Russia took Crimea by force, the Russian Duma even went through the formality of unilaterally nullifying Russia’s agreements and obligations.There is no legal justification for Putin’s actions, which is why the forced annexation of Ukrainian Crimea has been nearly universally condemned by the civilized world.Russia wanted Crimea, so they took. At least acknowledge what the entire rest of the world knows.