Is an authorization to sublease (retail space) considered a binding agreement in the state of North Carolina?
86179
I am not a lawyer and you did not make it totally clear, but it seems like your obligation is only to the Franchisor and not the owner of the property. Of course that assumes that you were never a party to the original lease.\n\nIf the Franchisor has released you from your contract, then you would be clear.
128306
This would seem to be a basic and clear violation of your lease.  As the leasee, you should have sole control over who has access to the leased area if there is nothing to the contrary in your lease agreement.  You can NOT simply stop paying the rent, however.  You must take your landlord to court if he/she does not rectify the situation.  Simply discontinuing payment may make you subject to eviction and get you put on one of the "bad leasees" lists.  I would suggest you put your request for him/her to rectify this situation in writing (date your letter) and MAIL it to your landlord via REGISTERED mail.  That creates a paper trail that you requested to have this problem resolved.  For more information, consult nolo.com for book related to landlord/tenants (see below) or, even better, consult a real estate attorney.
484716
It depends on the state laws; where are you?  \nDid they sign a contract when they joined the association?\nDid the assocation get included on the title of the house at some point?  \n\nYou may need to consult an attorney specializing in real estate law.
1118353
First of all, a verbal agreement is a binding contract. Secondly, why do you feel the need to screw your landlord?? He's losing a month's rent because you didn't have the decency to give notice. It's a sad world when a handshake or a persons word of honor means NOTHING. Be ashamed.
939381
Depends on your lease agreement. I would contact the housing authority for advise. They have a website  I beleive. G/L!
571021
In the United States, that would not be considered a sublet, because you do not have an interest in realty.  Rather, your status is as a licensee -- you have a license to enter into a place and to use it for limited purposes.\n\nI hope this is helpful.
207205
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. TEDDY LEE WALL\n\n\nNo. 417PA97\n\n\n(Filed 30 July 1998)\n\n\n1.    Burglary and Unlawful Breakings § 173 (NCI4th)-- burglary -- sentencing -- defendant on parole for prior offenses -- plea bargain -- sentence consecutive\n\n\n    The trial court erred by directing that defendant's sentence be served concurrently rather than consecutively where defendant received a ten-year sentence for larceny and breaking and entering in 1989, with probation; defendant's parole was revoked; he was subsequently paroled again and the parole was again revoked; before the notice of the last parole revocation reached the Department of Correction, defendant entered into a plea agreement for second-degree burglary, larceny, and breaking or entering which called for a consolidated judgment of twenty- five years; the agreement and judgment did not provide for a consecutive or concurrent sentence; the Department of Correction eventually modified defendant's record to reflect that the last sentence was to be consecutive pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 14-52; and defendant filed a motion for appropriate relief which was granted. In accord with the plain meaning of N.C.G.S. § 14-52 (effective until 1 January 1995), defendant's sentence for burglary could commence only at the expiration of the 1989 sentence because he was already serving the 1989 sentence.\n\n\n2.    Criminal Law § 131 (NCI4th Rev.)-- plea agreement -- burglary -- concurrent sentence -- defendant entitled to benefit of bargain -- defendant not entitled to specific performance\n\n\n    A defendant who entered into a plea agreement in 1994 under which several 1993 cases, including burglary, were consolidated for judgment was entitled to the benefit of his bargain where defendant, his attorney, and the prosecutor understood that the 1994 sentence was to run concurrently with the sentence defendant was already serving. However, defendant is not entitled to specific performance because that would violate the law of the state. Defendant may withdraw his plea and proceed to trial or attempt to negotiate another agreement that does not violate N.C.G.S. § 14-52. \n\n    On writ of certiorari pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-32(b) to review an order entered by Caldwell, J., on 7 January 1997 in Superior Court, Gaston County, allowing defendant's motion for appropriate relief and ordering that defendant's sentences be served concurrently, not consecutively. Heard in the Supreme Court 12 February 1998.\n\n    Michael F. Easley, Attorney General, by Elizabeth F. Parsons, Assistant Attorney General, for the N.C. Department of Correction petitioner-appellant.\n\n\n    Henry L. Fowler, III, for defendant-appellee.\n\n\n    North Carolina Prisoner Legal Services, Inc., by Winnifred H. Dillon, amicus curiae.\n\n\n\n    FRYE, Justice.\n\n\n    In this case we decide: (1) whether the superior court's order directing that defendant's sentences be served concurrently was in violation of N.C.G.S. § 14-52, and (2) whether defendant is entitled to a remedy for his reliance on the validity of his plea agreement.\n\n    This case developed as follows: On 12 December 1989, defendant received a ten-year suspended sentence upon his plea of guilty to several charges of larceny and breaking and entering and was placed on supervised probation. On 16 July 1991, defendant's probation was revoked, and his ten-year suspended sentence was activated. On 5 August 1992, the North Carolina Parole Commission gave notice of its intent to parole defendant from the activated sentence, and he was subsequently paroled. On 30 December 1993, defendant's parole was again revoked, reactivating his 1989 sentence.\n\n    On 26 July 1994, defendant entered into a plea agreement in case number 93CRS5858 to the offenses of second-degree burglary and felonious larceny and in case number 93CRS28258 to felonious breaking or entering and felonious larceny under which it was agreed that the
698307
Most lease agreements indicate that the tenant cannot sublease the property without written notice to, and approval from, the landlord.
583755
Here's one:\nhttp://www.agreementsetc.com/notice-to-pay/?OVRAW=sample%20eviction%20notice&OVKEY=sample%20eviction%20notice&OVMTC=standard\n\nBy the way, all I did was a Yahoo search of "sample eviction notice" and got instant results.
1108539
The entity that has the Last Right of Refusal has the option to purchase / lease / accept the deal, overwriting the initial bid.  For example, landlord leases 10,000 square feet of space to Widget company, and Widget has Last Right of Refusal on the adjoining space.  When ACME wants to move in next door, Widget always has the right to meet or beat ACME's bid for the space.\n\n(Contrary to first right of refusal, where Widget would just have to match ACME's bid for the space and win, with Last Right, ACME can up the bid in which case Widget can then match.)
814190
Yes, with the permission of your local zoning board you can convert your single building into two properties, similar to converting your two stores to condominiums, or cooperative retail space.\n\nPresently, the common usage is the water, but after conversion the common areas will be many such as the roof, foundation, exterior walls just to name a few.  You will want both owners to pay regularly for upkeep and maintenance, and there will need to be an adequate reserve fund in case repairs are necessary.  \n\nYou must seek a commercial real estate attorney's advice on this.  He can help you decide on the type of ownership that is best for you.  If you convert your building, a separate entity, a Condo or Coop Association, is created to define and safeguard the legal rights of both owners.  Large office buildings "go coop or condo", but usually the cost of converting is too expensive for converting one building into only 2 stores.\n\nYour attorney may suggest less expensive alternatives.  He will go over the benefits you receive and problems you take on by splitting the ownership.  And help you answer the question of what happens when you decide to sell the property to which you are keeping title.  \n\nPerhaps a long term lease is a better idea and makes more financial sense.  Another idea is to take on a partner in ownership who will have certain financial responsibilities in exchange for a share of the ownership.  You can also sell the entire property, and lease back the one store you want with the right to sublet it.
339663
As long as you are genuinely seeking to start your search over, and not purchase a home the agent has brought to your attention it should not be an issue.\n\nA simple written request will satisfy the termination clause in the Exclusive Buyer Brokerage agreement, used in the State of Florida, that I use with my clients.\n\nYour state may be different, and you may want to speak with an attorney.\n\nHowever, as a Realtor, I would much rather be told that a client wants a change. This frees up time for other clients, with whom I may have a better relationship.
832516
in general in cal, you can agree to anything, unless the law says ou can't.\nwith such a general question it is dificult to get specific.\nthe bay area counties are among the most restrictive in ca, and rent control is a fact of life, where the rest of the state is more relaxed.\ncontact the local board of realtors for better info.
689009
I'm not a lawyer. But, I definitely believe that you can approach the consumer grievance redressal forum.\n\nSee http://ncdrc.nic.in/ and http://www.consumercourt.netfirms.com/ to know the procedure.
172687
Whatever notice is specified in the lease.  If you have a lease that doesn't require you to leave upon his sale, it would be binding on the new owner.
1186537
One of your best options in a situation like this is to consult the local code enforcement to see if they will enforce a legal violation.  Many localities forbid multiple unrelated people from living under the same roof.  You should check that first.  Additionally, you should see if your lease forbids subleting and seek enforcement of that provision.  The property management company could require certain adherence to provisions in the contract if they are specifically articulated.
75326
It depends on both your rental agreement or lease agreement and the state or country where you are located. There are a few rights and obligations that supercede a rental agreement but the contract is the basic source of those rights for both parties. \n\nFor California (and to a limited extent for other states) I find the best published information at Nolo Press: \nhttp://www.nolo.com/resource.cfm/catID/5944A0DA-71B3-49EA-BF5D300558FB66A9/213/178/\n\nTexas A&M has a good website for Texas: http://recenter.tamu.edu/\n\nOtherwise look for your state department of real estates website and start there. \n\nDisclaimer: I am not a lawyer.