Landlord Tenant Relationship Flashcards

Question

T, a month-to-month tenant, notified L on November 16, 1997, that she would vacate Whiteacre on November 30, 1997. T's lease required her to give L 30 days notice to vacate. T vacated on November 30, 1997 and paid no further rent to L. L, after reasonable efforts, finally re-lets Whiteacre to a new tenant on April 1, 1998. L sues T for lost rent from December 1997 through March 1998.

Answer 1

L gets one month additional rent because notice that was not good for November 30 was certainly good for December 31. A month to month tenancy may be terminated by one month advance notice. Here T gave notice too late to terminate by Nov. 30, but it would certainly meet the 30 day requirement for a termination by December 31, the next month. So, T owes rent for one month. L had a duty to mitigate damages by making reasonable efforts to re-let, which he met. However, he is entitled to recover rent for the month for which the notice to terminate was ineffective.

Answer 2

Probably If the effect is that L is discriminating against single-parent households, then the answer is probably yes. In the situation of the one adult, plus 3 children, there may not be a violation of law if local laws proscribes the number of bedrooms for children over a certain age (many cities do).

Answer 3

No, L has not discriminated on any basis prohibited by the Fair Housing Act. Familial status relates to the parent-children relationship. Marital status is not covered.

Answer 4

No, L has not discriminated on any basis prohibited by the Fair Housing Act. Sexual orientation is not protected under FHA.

Answer 5

Probably L has discriminated because of a handicap Yes! Note, subsection F on page 476 tells you that AIDS is included in the definition of handicap.

Answer 6

L can sue T, but not T1. Because T transfers to T1 less than the full term of the lease (one year out of the two remaining), this is a sublease. In subleases, only the original tenant is liable, so L may sue T.

Answer 7

Yes, because L is still in "privity of contract" with T. In the absence of an express novation and release (substitution of new party and release of the original obligor), the original contractual obligation T assumed to pay rent is still binding. L's consent to the assignment doesn't constitute a release. So, T is still liable if T1 doesn't pay rent. However, T1 is liable for rent too under privity of estate.

Answer 8

T, T1 and T3. Fantastic! Great work. T2 is the only one who lacks privity (no privity of estate because not in possession and no privity of contract becasue T2 did not expressly assume the obligation to pay rent, like T1 did. T1 is liable on the basis of that contractual assumption. T is liable on the original contract because there has no express release by L. T3 is liable based on privity of estate because T3 is in possession.

Answer 9

Park West Management Corp. v. Mitchell: this is a breach of implied warranty of habitability. Damage formula is difference between the fair market value of the premises if they had been as warranted, and the value of the premises during the period of the breach

Answer 10

Solow v Wellner = if there is a claim by a tenant re: breach of warranty of habitability, how do you calculate the damages if the court finds in favor of the tenant? The difference between the fair market value of the premises if they had been as warranted, as measured by the rent reserved under the lease, and the value of the premises during the period of the breach.

Answer 11

Haddad v Gonzalez (in favor of the tenant due to the level of uninhabitability) and Foisy v Wyman (remanded to trial for determination of inhabitability)

Answer 12

Knudsen v Lax When the tenant sought the landlord's consent to move, the landlord breached his implied duty to act in good faith by refusing to consent and seeking rent for the lease's unexpired term. The landlord could not restore the tenant to the peaceful and quiet enjoyment of the leasehold or observe the landlord's duties under the warranty of habitability and to protect the tenant from a third party's foreseeable criminal conduct by forcing the offender to move because the landlord was statutorily barred from doing so, so he should have let the tenant move without further rent obligations so he could afford to move his family to safer surroundings.

Answer 13

False. All residential rentals include an implied warranty of habitability, which cannot be waived or disclaimed.

Answer 14

(Landlord wins in DeNardo v. Corneloup whereas the tenant won in Merrill v Bosser)

Answer 15

(Landlord wins in a commercial lease case Charlotte Eastland Mall v Sole Survivor and in a residential lease case, Sciascia v Riverpark Apts, courts did not think vandalism or theft qualify for constructive eviction).

Answer 16

When a landlord fails to act to help a tenant enjoy and use his property, s/he is liable. Fidelity Mutual Life Ins Co v Kaminsky)

Answer 17

American rule: Landlord is obligated only to deliver legal possession, aka the legal right to possession, when the lease begins. Tenant’s responsibility to oust the other AP’er or holdover. Or to sue the person occupying the premises for damages. Why? Tenants have sufficient legal and equitable remedies available to them, more so than a landlord English rule: Landlord is obligated to deliver legal and actual possession. Why? Landlord has greater ability to guard against risks of trespassers and holdovers. Most landlords these days are sophisticated when it comes to evictions and can bear the costs. **more common***

Answer 18

Step 1: Who’s involved and what do they have? T: TOY for 3 years under privity of contract (36 months) T1: Assignment for for 30 months, assumes all covenants under privity of contract T2: Assignment for 27 months, no privity of contract T3: Assignment for 24 months, no privity of contract, yes privity of estate because no gap in time between T3’s possession and landlord Step 2: Determine liability between each party and the landlord You only need one between privity of estate (NO GAP IN TIME) and privity of contract (NO PEOPLE BETWEEN) T: Yes to liability because of privity of contract T1: same as T1 T2: No liability because of lack of privity of estate (there’s a gap in time) and lack of privity of contract (b/c T2 didn’t assume covenants) T3: Liable because of privity of estate (no people between T3 and landlord) IF T2 subleased to T3 in the situation above, the ownership and liability would be different! T3: Sublease, no liability to landlord because there’s no privity of contract or estate

Answer 19

L to T: 36 months TOY with POC and POE T to T1: 24 months Sublease (less than whole) with POE L can sue both T and T1. T1 still has possession of the property, so privity of estate exists between L and T1. T and L still have privity of contract, since T did not sign a novation waiving all rights to the lease. Courts only require privity of contract or privity of estate to pursue monetary damages.

Answer 20

This was a term of years lease, and no notification is required. The term expires automatically. Then T would need to provide six months’ notice.

Answer 21

Cathy, do not fret about Franco, since his lease is terminated with Brett's unfortunate passing. Let's first address what interest you had when you, Amy and Brett first bought Blueacre together: That was a JT with ROS. Even though it was annoying, Brett's lease to Dora was within his rights of co-ownership. Dora's lease does not sever the JT you three already created. The majority of courts follow lien theory, which states that unless the actual title is transferred between parties, the unity of title is not severed. The interest between Brett and Dora was a term of years lease for two years, and as co-owners you all are entitled to a certain % of Dora's monthly rent payments. Once Amy quitclaimed her interest in Blueacre to Edward, her JT was severed because it violates the unity of time. Therefore, Edward had a 1/3 interest in Blueacre as a TIC whereas you and Brett still share a JT at 1/3 each. When Dora transferred her lease to Franco, it isn't completely clear if this was an assignment or a sublease. The majority of courts give landlords the right to refuse assignments and subleases, however some courts actually require a commercially reasonable excuse to deny tenants a sublease or assignment. Regardless, Franco moved in and paid rent, which Brett accepted. You as a JT and Edward as a TIC should be privy to a % of Franco's rent payment. The good news: Now that Brett is deceased, the lease agreement (whatever it was) between Brett and Franco is now void, since that is the rule of law in JT's involving a third party lease. If you want to eject Franco from Blueacre, you have the right to do so. However, if you want to renegotiate a brand new lease with terms that satisfy you, you have the right to do so as a 75% owner of Blueacre. As JT's, you and Brett shared ROS and as the survivor, you get Brett's share of the property.