Property AMP Set - Landlord And Tenant; Fixtures Flashcards
A leasehold is:
A Not an estate in land
B A freehold estate in land
C A nonfreehold estate in land
C
A leasehold is a nonfreehold estate in land. Nonfreehold estates in land (leaseholds) give possession of land for a limited time. The tenant has a present possessory interest in the leased premises, and the landlord has a future interest (reversion). A leasehold is not a freehold estate in land. Freehold estates in land (e.g., fee estates and life estates), like leaseholds, give possession, but their duration is regarded as longer than that of the nonfreehold (or leasehold) estates. A leasehold IS an estate in land. Possessory interests in land are estates in land, and as explained above, both the tenant and the landlord have possessory interests in leased premises. In contrast, nonpossessory interests in land (e.g., easements, profits, and covenants) are not estates in land.
Which statement is true regarding tenancies at will?
A Both the landlord’s and the tenant’s rights to terminate must be express and will not be implied
B If a lease gives only the tenant the right to terminate at will, a similar right generally will be implied in favor of the landlord
C If a lease gives only the landlord the right to terminate at will, a similar right generally will be implied in favor of the tenant
D If a lease gives only the landlord the right to terminate at will, a similar right generally will not be implied in favor of the tenant
C
If a lease gives only the landlord the right to terminate at will, a similar right generally will be implied in favor of the tenant. A tenancy at will is a tenancy that continues only until the landlord or the tenant gives notice and time to quit. Because in a tenancy at will both the landlord and the tenant must have the right to terminate the lease at will, courts usually imply a right to terminate in favor of the tenant if the lease gives only the landlord the right to terminate at will. On the other hand, if a lease gives only the tenant the right to terminate at will, a similar right generally will NOT be implied in favor of the landlord. Rather, most courts would interpret the conveyance as creating a life estate or fee simple terminable by the tenant (i.e., determinable). However, it is not true that both the landlord’s and the tenant’s rights to terminate must be express and will not be implied. As explained above, if the lease gives the landlord such a right, generally a court will imply the same for the tenant.
In residential leases, a tenant who holds over after termination of a year-to-year periodic tenancy may be held to a new periodic tenancy from __________.
A Week to week
B Year to year, with rent payable annually
C Month to month
D Year to year, with rent payable monthly
C
In residential leases, a tenant who holds over after termination of a year-to-year periodic tenancy may be held to a new periodic tenancy from month to month. If the tenant continues in possession after the termination of a lawful tenancy, the landlord may evict the tenant or bind the tenant to a new periodic tenancy. The terms and conditions of the expired tenancy (e.g., rent, covenants, etc.) apply to the new tenancy. Most courts would rule that a residential hold-over tenant becomes a month-to-month periodic tenant, regardless of the term of the original lease. Thus, even though the lease was for one year or more, the tenant may not be held to a new periodic tenancy from year to year, whether rent were payable monthly or payable annually. In contrast, a hold-over tenant under a commercial lease for one year or more may be held to a new year-to-year periodic tenancy. In residential leases, a tenant who holds over under a year-to-year periodic tenancy probably will not be held to a new periodic tenancy from week to week. While this might occur if the residential tenant were a roomer paying weekly rent, facts to that effect are not present here.
If a landlord’s breach of duty renders the premises unsuitable for occupancy, the tenant may:
A Remain in possession of the premises, continue to pay rent, and sue for damages
B Remain in possession of the premises and refuse to pay rent until the interference ceases
C Sue for breach only if the lease contained an express covenant for quiet enjoyment
D Vacate the premises, terminate the lease, and sue for damages
D
If a landlord’s breach of duty renders the premises unsuitable for occupancy, 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. Because a tenant cannot claim a constructive eviction unless and until she vacates the premises, her remedies do not include remaining in possession of the premises and refusing to pay rent until the interference ceases or continuing to pay rent and suing for damages. The tenant is not limited to suing for breach only if the lease contained an express covenant for quiet enjoyment. Every lease contains an implied covenant that neither the landlord nor someone with paramount title will interfere with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment and possession of the premises. If a landlord does so, the tenant has the remedies discussed above.
One week after a month-to-month tenant reports her landlord for housing code violations, the landlord gives the tenant 30 days’ notice that he is terminating her lease.
May the landlord evict the tenant after 30 days?
A Yes, because the tenant may seek damages under the implied warranty of habitability
B Yes, because one month’s notice is required to terminate a month-to-month tenancy
C Yes, unless the tenant can prove the landlord had a retaliatory motive
D No, unless the landlord can show a valid, nonretaliatory motive
D
No, the landlord may not evict the tenant after 30 days unless the landlord can show a valid, nonretaliatory motive. A landlord may not penalize a tenant for exercising her legal right to report housing or building code violations. Retaliatory acts include raising the rent; reducing tenant services; and terminating the lease, even as to periodic tenants to whom the landlord gives notice. Generally, retaliatory eviction statutes presume retaliation if the landlord acts shortly after the tenant exercises her rights (within 90 to 180 days in many states). Because retaliation is presumed, the tenant would be protected even if the tenant could not prove the landlord had a retaliatory motive. However, the landlord may overcome the presumption as stated above. Although one month’s notice is required to terminate a month-to-month tenancy, the tenant could claim retaliatory eviction because her lease was terminated shortly after she reported the housing code violations, as explained above. Under the implied warranty of habitability, the landlord covenants that the premises are suitable for human residence (e.g., up to the standards of the local housing code). Although the tenant may seek damages against a landlord who violates this warranty, a tenant who reports housing code violations may not be evicted in retaliation.
Which of the following transfers creates a sublease from T to T2?
A Six months into a seven-month tenancy for years, T transfers his interest “to A for the balance of the leasehold term”
B One year into a five-year tenancy for years, T transfers his interest “to T2 for four years; however, if T2 breaches the original lease terms, T may reenter and retake the premises”
C Two years into a four-year tenancy for years, T “assigns my entire interest to T2 for one year”
C
If two years into a four-year tenancy for years, T “assigns my entire interest to T2 for one year,” the effect of the transfer is to create a sublease between T and T2. The label given by the parties does not determine whether a transfer is an assignment or a sublease. Rather, a complete transfer of a tenant’s entire remaining lease term is an assignment, and a transfer retaining any part thereof is a sublease. Here, although T “assigned” his interest to T2, he transferred only one of the remaining two years of the lease. Thus, the transfer is a sublease rather than an assignment. If six months into a seven-month tenancy for years, T transfers his interest “to A for the balance of the leasehold term,” the effect of the transfer is an assignment of the lease from T to T2 because it includes T’s entire remaining lease term. If one year into a five-year tenancy for years, T transfers his interest “to T2 for four years; however, if T2 breaches the original lease terms, T may reenter and retake the premises,” the effect of the transfer is an assignment of the lease from T to T2. T transferred the remaining four years of the lease to T2, and by the slight majority view, T’s reservation of a right of reentry does not result in a sublease, but rather is still an assignment.
The Rule in Dumpor’s Case provides that:
A A covenant prohibiting assignment prohibits subleasing, and vice versa
B If a landlord consents to one transfer that would otherwise violate a covenant against assignment or sublease, he waives his right to assert that future transfers breach the lease
C A covenant against assignment or sublease is void as an unreasonable restraint on alienation
D If a tenant transfers her interest in violation of a covenant against assignment or sublease, the transfer is void
B
The Rule in Dumpor’s Case provides that if a landlord consents to one transfer that would otherwise violate a covenant against assignment or sublease, he waives his right to assert that future transfers breach the lease. The landlord must expressly reserve the right to object to future transfers at the time of granting consent to the initial transfer. A covenant prohibiting assignment does NOT prohibit subleasing, and vice versa. Covenants against assignment or sublease are strictly construed against the landlord, and absent an express restriction in the lease, a tenant may freely transfer his leasehold interest, in whole or in part. A complete transfer of the tenant’s entire remaining term is an assignment, and a transfer retaining any part thereof is a sublease. A prohibition of either type of transfer does not prohibit the other type. If a tenant transfers her interest in violation of a covenant against assignment or sublease, the transfer is NOT void. However, the landlord usually may terminate the lease under the lease terms or a statute or sue for damages. A covenant against assignment or sublease is NOT void as an unreasonable restraint on alienation. All jurisdictions enforce such covenants.
May a trespasser remove her annexed chattel from the landowner’s property?
A No, unless the chattel increased the value of the land
B No, regardless of whether the chattel was installed in good faith
C Yes, if the chattel was installed in good faith
D Yes, regardless of whether the chattel increased the value of the land
B
No, a trespasser may not remove her annexed chattel from the landowner’s property, regardless of whether the chattel was installed in good faith. A fixture is a chattel that has been so affixed to the realty that it has ceased being personal property and has become part of the realty. A trespasser (e.g., an adverse possessor before the running of the statute of limitations) normally loses her annexations whether or not affixed in good faith and regardless of whether the chattel increased the value of the land. However, if the trespasser acted in good faith and the chattel increased the value of the land, she may recover the value added to the land.
Which of the following leases does not create a month-to-month periodic tenancy?
A “L leases to T at an annual rent of $6,000, payable at $500 per month”
B “L leases to T from month to month”
C “L leases to T at a rent of $500 per month”
D L orally leases to T “for the next few years” and accepts monthly rent payments
A
“L leases to T at an annual rent of $6,000, payable at $500 per month” does not create a month-to-month periodic tenancy. A periodic tenancy is a tenancy that continues from period to period until terminated by proper notice by either the landlord or the tenant. It may be created in three ways: (i) by express agreement; (ii) by implication if a lease with no set termination date provides for the payment of periodic rent; or (iii) by operation of law if the tenant holds over or pays rent periodically under an invalid lease. Although a lease at an annual rent, payable monthly creates a periodic tenancy, the majority view is that the tenancy is from year to year rather than month to month. “L leases to T from month to month” creates a month-to-month periodic tenancy by express agreement. “L leases to T at a rent of $500 per month” creates a month-to-month periodic tenancy by implication because the lease reserves a monthly rent. If L orally leases to T “for the next few years” and accepts monthly rent payments, the lease is invalid because most states require that a lease creating a tenancy for more than one year be in writing to satisfy the Statute of Frauds. However, the tenant’s monthly payment of rent converts what would otherwise be a tenancy at will, terminable at the will of either the landlord or the tenant, into a month-to-month periodic tenancy.
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?
A L or L2
B L only
C Neither L nor L2
D L2 only
A
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. L only is incorrect because L2, the assignee, is liable for all lease covenants that run with the land, and the covenant of quiet enjoyment runs with the land. L2 only is incorrect because L, the original landlord, also remains liable on all covenants in the original lease after assignment. Neither L nor L2 is incorrect because the original landlord (L) remains liable on all covenants in the original lease after assignment, and the assignee (L2) is liable for all lease covenants that run with the land, including the covenant of quiet enjoyment.
If the government condemns __________ of the leased land, the tenant’s liability for rent __________, and the tenant __________ entitled to compensation for the taking.
A part; is apportioned; is not
B all; continues; may be
C all; is extinguished; may be
D part; is extinguished; is
C
If the government condemns all of the leased land, the tenant’s liability for rent is extinguished, and the tenant may be entitled to compensation for the taking. Because both the leasehold and the reversion merge in the condemnor, the lease is terminated. Thus, the tenant’s rent liability does NOT continue. If the government condemns part of the leased land, the tenant’s liability for rent is NOT extinguished. The tenant may be entitled to have rent apportioned and may be entitled to compensation for the taking.
Under the growing trend of modern case law, a landlord will be held liable for personal injuries of residential tenants and their guests resulting from the landlord’s __________ negligence.
A comparative
B ordinary
C slight
D contributory
B
Under the growing trend of modern case law, a landlord will be held liable for personal injuries of residential tenants and their guests resulting from the landlord’s ordinary negligence. This duty of reasonable care is ordinarily not imposed until the landlord has notice of a particular defect and a reasonable opportunity to repair it. Slight negligence involves the failure to exercise great care. A landlord generally will not be held to this high standard of care. Contributory and comparative negligence are defenses to negligence. At common law, a plaintiff’s contributory negligence completely barred his right to recover. Under a comparative negligence system, a contributorily negligent plaintiff may recover a percentage of his damages.
The three major types of leasehold estates in land are:
A Tenancies at sufferance, hold-over tenancies, and implied tenancies
B Tenancies for years, periodic tenancies, and tenancies at will
C Joint tenancies, tenancies in common, and tenancies by the entirety
B
The three major types of leasehold estates in land are tenancies for years, periodic tenancies, and tenancies at will. A tenancy for years is a leasehold estate that continues for a fixed period of time and then automatically expires. A periodic tenancy is a leasehold estate that continues from period to period until terminated by either the landlord or the tenant giving proper notice. A tenancy at will is a leasehold estate that continues only until the landlord or the tenant gives notice and time to quit. Tenancies at sufferance, hold-over tenancies, and implied tenancies are not the three major types of leasehold estates in land. A tenancy at sufferance arises when a tenant wrongfully remains in possession (i.e., “holds over”) after the expiration of a lawful tenancy. Tenancies at sufferance are considered by some authorities not to be estates in land, as the tenant remains in possession only until the landlord takes steps to evict him. Alternatively, the landlord may choose to accept rent and bind the hold-over tenant to a new periodic tenancy. While this creates a periodic tenancy by operation of law, periodic tenancies also can be implied from a lease that states no definite time period but provides for periodic rent payments. However, the type of leasehold estate created is a periodic tenancy. Joint tenancies, tenancies in common, and tenancies by the entirety are not leasehold estates in land. They are forms of concurrent ownership in land, wherein multiple persons have the right to the enjoyment and possession of the land at the same time.
Which tenancy continues for a fixed period of time and then automatically terminates without the landlord or the tenant giving notice?
A Tenancy for years
B Periodic tenancy
C Tenancy at sufferance
D Tenancy at will
A
A tenancy for years continues for a fixed period of time and then automatically terminates without the landlord or the tenant giving notice. A periodic tenancy continues from period to period until terminated by proper notice by either the landlord or the tenant. The termination date of a periodic tenancy is uncertain until notice is given. A tenancy at will continues until terminated by the landlord or the tenant. Sufficient notice must be given to allow the tenant a reasonable time to quit the premises. Such a tenancy also terminates by operation of law if:1. Either party dies;2. The tenant commits waste;3. The tenant attempts to assign his tenancy;4. The landlord transfers her interest in the property; or5. The landlord executes a term lease to a third person. A tenancy at sufferance arises when a tenant wrongfully remains in possession after the expiration of a lawful tenancy. It lasts until either the landlord evicts the tenant or the tenant becomes a periodic tenant by virtue of the landlord’s declaring him so or accepting additional rent.
__________ waste results when a tenant intentionally or negligently damages the leased premises.
A Voluntary
B Ameliorative
C Permissive
A
Voluntary waste results when a tenant intentionally or negligently damages the leased premises. It also results when a tenant exploits minerals on the property, unless the property was previously so used or the lease provides that the tenant may do so. Permissive waste results when a tenant fails to make ordinary repairs to keep the leased premises in the same condition as at the commencement of the lease term, excluding ordinary wear and tear (unless the tenant covenanted to repair ordinary wear and tear). Ameliorative waste results when a tenant makes substantial alterations to the leased premises that increase the value of the property. Modern courts will permit a change in the character of premises that have significantly decreased in value over time if:1. The change increases the value of the premises;2. The change is performed by a long-term tenant (e.g., 25 years) or a life tenant; and3. The change reflects a change in the nature and character of the neighborhood.
A tenant leases premises that are destroyed without the fault of either the landlord or the tenant.
Under the majority view, which is true in the absence of a contrary lease provision?
A The lease remains effective, and the tenant may cease paying rent
B The lease remains effective, and the tenant must continue paying rent
C The lease may be terminated at the tenant’s option, and the tenant may cease paying rent
C
Under the majority view, in the absence of a contrary lease provision, if the leased premises are destroyed without the fault of either the landlord or the tenant, the lease may be terminated at the tenant’s option, and the tenant may cease paying rent. The common law rule differs from the majority view in that if the leased premises are destroyed without the fault of either the landlord or the tenant, the lease remains effective and the tenant must continue paying rent. Note that the harsh common law rule has been modified by statute in most states. Absent a contrary lease provision, if under applicable law the lease remains effective after destruction of the leased premises without the fault of either the landlord or the tenant, the tenant may NOT cease paying rent.
In the majority of states, if a hold-over tenant is occupying the premises when a new tenant’s term begins, who must evict the hold-over tenant?
A The landlord
B The new tenant
C No one, because the hold-over tenant is a tenant at sufferance
A
In the majority of states, if a hold-over tenant is occupying the premises when a new tenant’s term begins, the landlord must evict the hold-over tenant. In most states, the landlord must deliver actual possession to the tenant at the beginning of the leasehold term. The landlord is in breach of this duty if she has not evicted a hold-over tenant by the beginning of the new tenant’s term. In a minority of states, the landlord’s obligation is merely to give the tenant the legal right to possession at the beginning of the leasehold term. In these states, if the premises are occupied by a hold-over tenant, it is up to the new tenant to bring eviction proceedings. Although the hold-over tenant is a tenant at sufferance, the landlord must evict the tenant and put the new tenant in actual possession of the premises. A tenant at sufferance is a tenant who wrongfully remains in possession after the expiration of a lawful tenancy. No notice is required to end the tenancy, which lasts only until the landlord takes steps to evict the tenant.
L leases property to T, and T covenants to pay rent. T later transfers the balance of the leasehold term to T2.
Whom may L hold liable for the subsequent failure to pay rent?
A Only T
B Only T2
C Either T or T2
C
L may hold either T or T2 liable for the subsequent failure to pay rent. A complete transfer of a tenant’s entire remaining lease term is an assignment of the lease. The assignee and the landlord are in privity of estate, with each liable to the other on all lease covenants that run with the land (e.g., the covenant to pay rent). Thus, an assignee owes rent directly to the landlord. After assignment, the original tenant is no longer in privity of estate with the landlord, but remains in privity of contract. Because T promised to pay rent in his lease with L, he can still be held liable on his original contractual obligation to pay. Thus, L may hold liable the original tenant (T) or the assignee (T2) for failure to pay rent. If, by contrast, the transfer had been a sublease rather than an assignment, L could have held only T liable for failure to pay rent. A tenant’s transfer of less than the entire remaining lease term is a sublease. The sublessee is liable to the original tenant for rent as agreed to in the sublease, but is not personally liable to the landlord for rent or any covenants made by the original tenant in the original lease. This is because the sublessee neither has a contractual relationship with the landlord (i.e., no privity of contract) nor holds the tenant’s full estate in the land (i.e., no privity of estate). Thus, the covenants in the original lease do not run with the land to bind the sublessee. Note that while, in a sublease, T2 is not personally liable to L for the rent, T2 still has a strong interest in ensuring that the rent is paid, because if it is not, L has the right to terminate the lease, thus eliminating T2’s right to possess the premises.
