Landlord Tenant Lease in the US? The landlord included the statement in the lease, which both the landlord and tenant agreed to in writing.?

"Both parties Acknowledge and Understand that if the landlord is unavailable to do necessary repairs to the house, then the tenant can find reasonably priced and qualified repairmen to do the work, Then the tenant will email the landlord all the information at which time, the landlord will verify the repairmen to do the work to the house. And as soon as the landlord sends the written agreement to the tenant, the tenant can get the repairmen to do the necessary repairs.And either the tenant can deduct the cost of repairs from the next months rent or the landlord can pay directly the repairmen upon the tenants' written approval of satisfactory work done"

The trouble is that the tenant did not do this, but still falsely claimed the horrible conditions of the property, in order to get money from landlord.Yet, in in court, the judge ruled against the landlord, stating that the landlord could NOT delegate finding repairmen to the tenant.

The landlord knows of no such law, and the judge (in Atlanta) will not answer which law this is.SO … Is this lease legal or not?Details are good.Thanks.



Forcing a tenant to find a repairman puts them in the position of a Property Manager.In most states, this would require a license, usually a Real Estate License.

The lease is legal, this clause may not be.If this clause goes against some laws it can be stricken but the rest of the lease is still in full force.

The clause is perfectly legal and very common in states where there are "snowbirds"..a/k/a seasonal rentals.I would appeal the judges decision since the is no law in Georgia that prohibits such a clause.

You asked this question before. There is no state or territory in the USA which allows a landlord to compel a tenant to maintain or repair a rental property.

Just because the dumb*ss landlord is ingorant of the law does not mean that he does not have to abide by the law.A landlord has a responsibility to repair necessary repairs.The lease is valid in a court of law, except the paragraph that is contrary to the law.In other words, he cannot take on the job of a landlord and then not do what he, as alandlord, is responsible for doing.It is not the job of a judge to quote the law to the judge.It is the plaintiff's or defendant's responsibility to quote the law to the judge to support the case he is presenting to the judge.

YOU HAVE ASKED THIS REPEATEDLY.ignorance of the law is no excuse.if you chose not to hire a lawyer, it was your responsibility at the hearing to present statute or case law to the judge.

if you want to pursue the case (appeal), then go to a can usually get a free or low cost consultation.

for the tenant to make a claim, he would have had to notify the LL of the issue in writing.there wouldhave been some conversation re the tenant proceeding with the repairs. if the tenant was adhering to the agreement.

when that discussion did not take place, the LL needed to take over and do the repairs himself rather than have a temper tantrum because the tenant was not doing it.finding repair men can be done from anywhere with a phone or internet connection.LL cannot make the case he was unavailable to do that.

if the LL was available to agree to work, LL would be available to arrange the work.


i have heard of cases where the tenant was responsible for at least some repairs, typically in exchange for lower rent...but where that is legal and how that is worded is questionable

and yeah, the way it is worded, it only gives tenant PERMISSION to proceed with finding a repair person if they choose....doesn't require them to

There might not be a law saying he CAN'T delegate it to the tenant, but unless he cam poin t to a law saying he CAN, he's the one responsible for maintenance.

dont sound legal to nne

The key points here have to do with what rights and authority comes with owning a property.

An owner can have contractors come in and make whatever changes to his property that he wishes be made, that he is willing to pay for, and which do not violate property codes.

Also, the property owner can insure any and all property they own.

Now, here's the key point: As with insurance, a renter can insure their own stuff that is inside of the rented residence, but they CANNOT insure the actual rented residence, because they have no ownership rights to it.

Similarly, you can insure a car you own, or a home you own, but you cannot get insurance on your neighbour's house or car, because you have zero ownership interest and rights to either property.

Similarly, a tenant has no right to bring in any contractors and make any changes or repairs to the rented residence, because the tenant also has ZERO ownership interest in said residence.

What if the tenant brought a contractor in and ordered the contractor to do, say, $10,000 of cosmetic upgrades ? Would the landlord have to pay for that work ? No, they would not.

The judge was 100% right. The landlord and owner of the residence has the sole responsibility to maintain the residence, and the tenant, at most, could call in a contractor in the case of an actual emergency, such as, say, a burst water pipe. The tenant pays the landlord, and one of the things that is paid for, is the landlord getting the needed contractors to fix anything that is against the habitability codes for rental properties in that jurisdiction.

The landlord in this case is a moron.