Landlord-Tenant Relations Flashcards
Landlord-tenant
1) O–>A for years; housing as a public utility (rather than private, unrestricted endeavor)
i) implied covenant of rent:
reasonable amount
ii) No implied covenant prop suited for tenant’s intended use but…
1) LL owes a duty to disclose defects that cannot be reas’ly discovered by tenant and 2) LL cannot make false/fraudulent representations that the land is suitable for the intended use if he knows
(1) Anderson Drive-in:
not suitable for drive-in theater (muddy); LL knew–>for LL since it was reas’ly discoverable and he made no explicit claims of suitability in lease
(a) FT: wrong; rule is unfair/encourages waste (uneconomical); LL in best position to disclose defect and should have to if it goes to heart of transaction; should be explicit in K if LL doesn’t want to guarantee
iii) Duty to put tenant in legal possession at lease-start, but what about actual possession?
American rule:
no duty to lessee against wrongful acts of strangers; lessee must sue 3p, not LL
(a) rationale: 1) tenant has remedy against wrongful possessor; 2) unreas. to hold LL liable for 3p’s wrong; 3) estate is technically the lessee’s when the lease starts (estate for years) (counter: “apparent agency”)
iii) Duty to put tenant in legal possession at lease-start, but what about actual possession?
English rule:
duty to ensure actual possession at start of term; tenant can sue LL
(a) rationale: 1) LL in better position to prevent wrongful possession; 2) tenant made K w/ expectations of actual possession
iii) Duty to put tenant in legal possession at lease-start, but what about actual possession?
Rabinowitz:
LL liable to tenant when prior possessor overstayed lease/refused to vacate
Implied Warranty of Habitability
(Unwaivable): IWH –>LL must keep premises fit for habitation (repair/maintenance)—according to housing codes—and cannot evict tenant in retaliation for failure to pay rent or reporting violations
IMH Breach Remedy
withhold rent: constructive eviction not feasible (lack of resources, need a place to live)
IMH
iii) Javins:
instituted IWH; overturned CL rule that tenant responsible for habitability; rationale:
(1) apt-based tenancy dif from agrarian context of CL
(2) unequal bargaining power (tenants have little leverage to require better conditions)
IMH
iv) Habib:
while LL may evict for legal reason or no reason at all, cannot evict in response to report of violation
(1) rationale: 1) expense of moving, 2) unequal bargaining power, 3) social/econ importance of min standards
(2) prob: can evict for “no reason at all”–>how to prove eviction was in retaliation?
IMH
(a) Walls:
LLs have no duty to protect tenants from crim attacks EXCEPT when:
- known phys defect on premises that foreseeably enhances risk
- clearly foreseeable (regardless of defects); (i.e. high-crime area)
- LL gratuitously/contractually provides security
a. FT: discourages security
(ii) F: woman raped in parking lot where multiple crimes had taken place (not rape)remanded
v) Extension of IWH (commercial leases, homes):
unequal bargaining power big factor so not as likely for commercial leases; but more likely for homes (state dependent)
a) Assignment:
privity of K between assignee/LL; LL has legal remedy over assignee. Original lease terms imputed
b) Sublease
doesn’t create legal obligation from subtenant to LL. Subtenant–>Tenant–>LL. Original K doesn’t apply
Assignment or Sublease?
i) CL rule:
if tenant reserves some interest in prop (doesn’t transfer full interest), it is a sublease; if tenant conveys all interest (for full term), it is an assignment
(1) harsh rule: problems: if subtenant thinks it’s a sublease and pays rent, he can also be held liable for rent to LL if its an assignment; if tenant thinks it’s a sublease and charges high rent, if assignment, gets nothing
Assignment or Sublease?
ii) Intention-based rule:
intent of parties (as shown in K) determines classification
Assignment or Sublease?
(1) Jaber:
original lease termination via fire; if assignment, ∆ sub must still pay tenant because installments = purchase payments for assignment; if sublease, ∆ does not have to pay installments because payments = rent–>assignment since K said “assignment”
a) Abandonment
i) Can LL relet if tenant abandons (even though technically tenant still has legal interest)termination clause used to get around this
ii) Duty to Mitigate?
(1) Traditional rule: no duty to mitigate: unfair to create aff’mative duty for actions of other
(2) Duty to mitigate rule: obligation to take commercially reas. steps to mitigate losses (relet): economical
a) Abandonment
Reid:
∆ abandoned; Court said it wasn’t constructive eviction (noisy neighbors); π relet–>damages off-set by reletting
b) Constructive Eviction:
implied covenant of quiet enjoyment allows tenant to vacate w/o paying rent for actions that substantially affect tenant’s beneficial enjoyment for purposes contemplated by the tenancy
i) BUT the tenant must actually vacate the premises if he can w/in reas. time or waive right to not pay rent
Constructive Eviction:
(1) Swords:
Texaco sign taken down (against K: commercial traffic); didn’t vacate–>while tenant had ability to vacate w/o paying rent, he must pay rent since he did not do so
(a) damages (not eviction/termination) is remedy for breach of covFT: π should have argued for damages since it may have been unreas. for him to leave (he was just trying to get LL to pay)!
5) Rent Control (now, urban housing seen more as a public utility subject to more regulation)
a) prob w/ RC: only way for LL to make more is to lower operating costs (lower standards)state regs not a magic pill for affordable, high standard housing
b) Mobile homes:
not mobile–>tenant owns home, but pays rent on “pad”
i) Yee:
rent control statute prohibiting eviction and prohibiting ability to deny tenants is NOT a per se “physical intrusion” taking since gov is not intruding, but just regulating activity that would happen otherwise
(1) F: π park owners want comp claiming that it’s a physical intrusion to require them to have certain tenants permanently–>not a physical intrusion
(2) FT: should have argued for regulatory Penn Central taking, not a physical per se intrusion
