Landlord/Tenant Flashcards
SMASH
Default by Tenant Remedies
Distraint: Common-law remedy for LLs allowing LLs to seize Ts property and hold it until payment of back rent.
Subject to Due Process Limitations
Summary Proceedings: Provided for in every state
Should Tenants be able to say that conditions are not met as a defense when they are sued for unpaid rent?
Think about this as you do the reading for next class.
114 day average delay on evictions in DC.
Constructive Eviction
Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment in lease
Some allowance for implicit covenants if words in the lease support such a covenant
Breach of the Covenant
That is Substantial
Breach occurs through:
Any act or omission of the LL (or of someone with superior title to the LL)
Which renders the premises substantially unsuitable for the purpose for which the premises were leased or which seriously interferes with the beneficial enjoyment of the premises
Right to claim constructive eviction lost if T does not vacate the premises within a reasonable time after right comes into existence.
Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment under Common Law
General rule for finding covenant of quiet enjoyment violations: When LL breach by interference or by withholding something explicitly included in the lease terms
Reste Reality Rule
Constructive Eviction Requires
Deprivation of beneficial enjoyment and use
On account of acts chargable to the LL
Source of T’s rights immaterial – do not need to look for a covenant of quiet enjoyment or material failure of consideration, or material breach of an implied warranty against latent defects.
Remedies of the Tenant
Right to abandon with right to consequential damages from the abandonment.
Damages equal to difference between value of property with and without the breach.
Suppose T made a great initial lease and then the LL slacked in maintenance but the Apt. was with the breach still worth more than T paying, should T get compensation equal to the loss, or has there been no loss?
Note: a breach not substantial enough to amount to constructive eviction does not mean that the T would not be entited to damages.
Illegal Lease
Doctrine: No rent due because of unsafe and unsanitary conditions in violations of the housing code.
T is a T at sufference and LL entitled to reasonable rental value of the premises given their condition.
?: Will this not normally be the rental price agreed upon?
Limitations:
Does not apply if conditions develop after making of the lease
Minor technical violations nor violations of which the LL had no actual or constructive knowledge do not render a lease illegal
Implied Warranty of Habitability
Requires: LL deliver over and maintain, throughout the period of the tenancy, premises that are safe, clean and fit for human habitation.
Assumption of the risk by Ts not allowed
Should it be?
Courts may look to local housing codes and to minimum housing code standards.
A substantial violation of an applicable code shall constitute prima facie evidence of breach.
T required to give notice to the LL, and allowed reasonable amount of time for LL to correct.
T can withhold payment of future rent, and T must show (1) notice to LL, and (2) condition existed during period rent withheld (photos help).
T can repair and deduct for the repair from rent due.
Should that rent have to be paid into legal custody?
Why the change to Implied Warranty of Habitability?
Goals of T have changed:
“[Tenants] seek a well known package of goods and services—a package which includes not merely walls and ceilings, but also adequate heat, light and ventilation, serviceable plumbing facilities, secure windows and doors, proper sanitation, and proper maintenance.” (Javins, p433
T no longer able to do repairs or in best position to keep the complex living units habitable.
T in inferior bargaining position relative to LL.
How far does the Implied Warranty of Habitability reach?
It’s fairly relative. Very case law sensitive.
From the Left:
Implied Warranty of Habitability
Literature focuses on urban rental space
From the Left: warranty as a mechanism to transfer wealth from wealthy landlords to poor tenants through mandatory condition improvements whose costs cannot be passed along to the tenants.
Ackerman (1971, 1973) and Powers (1993)
