LL/T Flashcards
If a residential tenant assuming possession of the leased premises discovers that the wiring is dangerously frayed and the plumbing is faulty, the landlord has breached the __________.
Implied Warranty of Habitability
Under the implied warranty of habitability for residential tenancies, the landlord covenants that the premises are suitable for human residence. The standard usually applied is the local housing code. Dangerous wiring and faulty plumbing likely violate the local housing code and will subject the landlord to liability for breach of the implied warranty of habitability.
If a landlord’s breach of duty renders the premises unsuitable for occupancy, under the doctrine of constructive eviction, the tenant may:
Vacate the premises; terminate the lease; and sue for damages.
Under the doctrine of constructive eviction, if the landlord’s breach (i.e., doing an act or failing to provide some service that he has a legal duty to provide) makes the premises untenantable, the tenant may terminate the lease and also may seek damages if the following conditions are met: 1. The breach must be by the landlord or by persons acting for him. 2. The breach must substantially and materially deprive the tenant of her use and enjoyment of the premises (e.g., flooding, absence of heat in winter). 3. The tenant must give the landlord notice and a reasonable time to repair. 4. The tenant must vacate the premises within a reasonable time.
May a tenant waive the implied warranty of habitability?
No, because such a waiver is against PP.
If L leases property to T, and L subsequently assigns L’s interest to L2, whom may T hold liable when X, a paramount title holder, ejects T?
L or L2.
If L leases property to T, and L subsequently assigns L’s interest to L2, T may hold L or L2 liable when X (a paramount title holder), ejects T.
A landlord may assign the rents and reversion interest that he owns. The assignee is liable to the tenants for performance of all covenants made by the original landlord in the lease, provided that those covenants run with the land. The original landlord also remains liable on all of the covenants he made in the lease. X’s evicting T from the entire leased premises breaches the covenant of quiet enjoyment, which runs with the land. Thus, L and L2 are personally liable to T.
A landlord leased a house to a tenant for five years. Under the terms of the lease, the tenant was to pay a fixed monthly rent plus all taxes and reasonable maintenance charges for the upkeep of the house. Three years into the lease, the tenant assigned her lease to a friend by written agreement. Although the tenant properly set forth the terms concerning the rent and maintenance charges, she failed to properly state that the friend was liable to pay the taxes on the residence during the period of the lease. A year later, the landlord received notice that a tax lien would be placed on the residence unless the taxes were immediately paid. The landlord paid the taxes and brought suit against the tenant’s friend for the amount. The suit extremely upset the friend, who abandoned the residence.
Can the landlord successfully bring a suit against the tenant for this breach of the lease?
YES, because the tenant’s assignment to the friend did not terminate the tenant’s obligations.
An assignee is in privity of estate with the LL and is liable for all covenants that run with the land, including the covenant to pay rent. The original tenant (assignor) remains in privity of contract with the LL and is liable for the rent reserved in the lease if the assignee abandons the property. Therefore, the tenant is liable to the LL for the remaining rent
A landlord leased a building to a baker for 10 years, commencing January 1, at a monthly rental of $1,700. The lease stated in part, “The tenant may not sublet or assign this lease without first receiving written permission from the landlord to do so. Any attempt to sublet or assign the lease without first receiving written permission shall constitute a breach entitling the landlord to terminate this lease.”
Five years later, an investor approached the baker and offered to purchase the bakery if the baker would agree to sublet the premises to him. The baker agreed and executed a sublease on July 1 of that year. The investor took possession the same day. On July 3, the baker approached the landlord and asked for written permission to sublet the premises to the investor. The landlord said he had no real objection to the sublease and would execute the document requested by the baker, but only if the investor would sign a five-year extension of the existing lease. The investor refused to extend the lease, but remained in possession of the building. At no time did the landlord accept rent from the investor. After notice was given to all parties and the applicable grace period in the lease had elapsed, the landlord brought an appropriate action against the baker and the investor to evict them from the premises and to declare the lease terminated because it had been breached.
How should the court rule in this action?
For the LL, because the Baker breached his lease.
The landlord should prevail because the baker has breached the lease. Generally, if a tenant transfers (assigns or sublets) in violation of a prohibition in the lease against transfers, the transfer is not void. However, the landlord usually may terminate the lease under either the lease terms or a statute. Here, because the baker has breached the provision of the lease prohibiting assignment or sublease, and the lease contains a forfeiture clause, the landlord was within his rights to terminate the lease.
A landlord entered into a 10-year lease of a building with an auctioneer, who planned to use the building itself for a storage area and the covered porch at the front of the building for auctions. A term in the auctioneer’s lease stated, “Lessor agrees to maintain all structures on the property in good repair.” Four years into the lease, the landlord sold the property to a buyer. The buyer did not agree to perform any obligations under the lease. As instructed, the auctioneer began paying rent to the buyer. In the fifth year of the lease, the porch roof began to leak. Citing the lease terms, the auctioneer asked the buyer to repair the roof. He continually refused to do so. The auctioneer finally repaired the roof herself at a cost of $2,000. The auctioneer then brought an appropriate lawsuit to recover the money.
Absent any other facts, what is the auctioneer likely to recover?
$2,000 from either the Buyer or the LL because they are both in privity with the auctioneer
A landlord’s promise in a lease to maintain the property does not terminate because the property is sold. Although no longer in privity of estate, the original landlord and tenant remain in privity of contract, and the original landlord remains liable on the covenant unless there is a novation. A novation substitutes a new party for an original party to the contract. It requires the assent of all parties and completely releases the original party. Because neither the auctioneer nor the buyer has agreed to a novation, the landlord remains liable for the covenant because he and the auctioneer remain in privity of contract even after the sale. Thus, the promise to repair can be enforced against the landlord. When leased property is sold, the purchaser may be liable for his predecessor’s promises if the promise runs with the land. A covenant in a lease runs with the land if the parties to the lease so intend and the covenant touches and concerns the land. Generally, promises to do a physical act, such as maintain or repair the property, are considered to run with the land. Thus, the buyer is liable because he is in privity of estate with the auctioneer and the covenant to repair runs with the land. Consequently, both the landlord and the buyer are potentially liable to the auctioneer for the repairs. While it is true that the sale/assignment to the buyer did not sever the landlord’s obligation to the auctioneer, as explained above, the landlord is not the only person who is liable to the auctioneer.
A man had rented a woman’s home from her for seven years. When the time came to sign a new lease, the woman decided that because the man had always been a quiet tenant, she would continue to charge him only $350 per month rent instead of the $500 to $550 she could probably get otherwise. The new lease was for a period of five years, and by its terms, the man was specifically prohibited from assigning the lease without the woman’s specific written consent. About a year later, the man got married and moved into his new wife’s home. Instead of giving up his lease, the man sublet the property to a friend for $500 a month. The man did not get the woman’s permission to sublease the property.
If the woman brings an action to either eject the friend from the premises or to recover damages from the man for subletting the premises without her consent, what is the most likely result?
The woman will have no cause of action for either ejectment or damages.
There are two ways for a tenant to transfer the right to possession under a lease: assignment (transferring the entire period of time remaining under the lease) and sublease (transferring only a portion of the time remaining under the lease). Restraints on alienation are traditionally strictly construed. Thus, a covenant prohibiting assignment does not prohibit subleasing and vice versa. Hence, this prohibition against assignment would not be read to include a prohibition against subleasing. Therefore, the woman would have no cause of action against the man
