Property Learning Questions - Set 2 Flashcards
In which of the following situations must the tenant continue to pay a portion of the rent?
A
The landlord takes possession of an unused barn on the leased premises and stores farm equipment in it.
B
A paramount title holder obtains a judgment in an ejectment action against the tenant.
C
A paramount title holder takes possession of an unused barn on the leased premises and stores farm equipment in it.
D
The landlord obtains a judgment in an ejectment action against the tenant.
C
If a paramount title holder takes possession of an unused barn on the leased premises and stores farm equipment in it, the tenant must continue to pay a portion of the rent. 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. This covenant is breached by the tenant’s total or partial actual eviction from the leased premises. Total actual eviction occurs when the landlord or a paramount title holder excludes the tenant from the entire leased premises. This terminates the tenant’s obligation to pay rent. Partial actual eviction occurs when the tenant is excluded from only part of the leased premises. Partial eviction by the landlord relieves the tenant of the obligation to pay rent for the entire premises, even though the tenant continues in possession of the remainder of the premises. Partial eviction by a paramount title holder results in an apportionment of rent; i.e., the tenant is liable for the reasonable rental value of the portion that he continues to possess. A paramount title holder’s taking possession of an unused barn constitutes partial actual eviction. Thus, rent will be apportioned.
If the landlord or a paramount title holder obtains a judgment in an ejectment action against the tenant, the total actual eviction terminates the tenant’s obligation to pay rent.
If the landlord takes possession of an unused barn on the leased premises and stores farm equipment in it, the partial actual eviction by the landlord terminates the tenant’s obligation to pay rent for the entire premises.
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 __________.
A
covenant against encumbrances
B
implied covenant of marketability
C
implied warranty of habitability
D
covenant of quiet enjoyment
C
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.
Under the covenant of quiet enjoyment, the landlord covenants that neither she nor someone with paramount title will interfere with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment and possession of the premises. The covenant of quiet enjoyment may be breached by: total actual eviction, partial actual eviction, or constructive eviction.
The implied covenant of marketability is not a landlord-tenant concept but is implied in every land sale contract. It obliges the seller to provide the buyer with marketable title (i.e., title reasonably free from doubt) at closing.
The covenant against encumbrances is not a landlord-tenant concept but is a usual covenant contained in a general warranty deed. It is a covenant assuring that there are neither visible encumbrances (e.g., easements) nor invisible encumbrances (e.g., mortgages) against the title or interest conveyed.
If a landlord’s breach of duty renders the premises unsuitable for occupancy, under the doctrine of constructive eviction, the tenant may:
A
Sue for breach only if the lease contained an express covenant for quiet enjoyment
B
Remain in possession of the premises, continue to pay rent, and sue for damages
C
Vacate the premises, terminate the lease, and sue for damages
D
Remain in possession of the premises and refuse to pay rent until the interference ceases
C
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.
Which statement regarding partial actual eviction is correct?
A
Partial actual eviction by a paramount title holder does not relieve the tenant of any rent obligation
B
Partial actual eviction by a paramount title holder relieves the tenant of the obligation to pay rent for the entire premises
C
Partial actual eviction by the landlord relieves the tenant of the obligation to pay rent for the entire premises
D
Partial actual eviction by the landlord relieves the tenant of the obligation to pay rent for only the portion of the premises from which he was evicted
D
Partial actual eviction by the landlord relieves the tenant of the obligation to pay rent for the entire premises. 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. This covenant is breached by the tenant’s total or partial actual eviction from the leased premises. Partial actual eviction occurs when the tenant is excluded from only part of the leased premises. Even though the tenant continues in possession of the remainder of the premises, partial eviction by the landlord relieves the tenant of the obligation to pay rent for the entire premises rather than for only the portion of the premises from which he was evicted.
In contrast, partial eviction by a paramount title holder results in an apportionment of rent; i.e., it relieves the tenant of the obligation to pay rent NOT for the entire premises, but only for the portion of the premises from which he was evicted. The tenant remains liable for the reasonable rental value of the portion that he continues to possess.
May a tenant waive the implied warranty of habitability?
A
Yes, if the tenant covenants to repair
B
Yes, if the tenant accepts the premises “as is”
C
No, because such a waiver is against public policy
D
No, because waiver is prohibited by the Fair Housing Act
C
No, a tenant may not waive the implied warranty of habitability, because such a waiver is against public policy. Under the implied warranty of habitability, a landlord assures that the premises are suitable for human residence. The standard usually applied is the local housing code. One of the reasons for implying a covenant of habitability is to encourage enforcement of the housing code by tenants. Thus, even if the tenant accepts the premises “as is” or covenants to repair, the landlord’s obligations under the implied warranty of habitability are usually held to be nonwaivable. The Fair Housing Act bars discrimination based on race, ethnicity, religion, national origin, gender, and disability in the sale or rental of a dwelling. It is not concerned with the implied warranty of habitability.
A landlord rented an art studio to an artist. Under the terms of the signed, written, two-year lease, the artist agreed to pay the landlord $1,000 per month and to assume responsibility for all necessary repairs. After the first year of the lease, the artist assigned the balance of his lease to a sculptor. The landlord approved the sculptor as a tenant and accepted two rent payments from her, and then the landlord sold the building to an investor. The sculptor had made two payments to the investor when an electrical fire broke out in the studio, injuring the sculptor. The fire was caused by faulty wiring. The landlord was aware that there was a dangerous wiring problem when he leased the property to the artist. But when the landlord discovered how costly repairs would be, he decided it would be more profitable to sell the property than to repair it. The problem was not easily discoverable by anyone other than an expert electrician, and the landlord did not tell the artist, the sculptor, or the investor about the problem. The sculptor sues to recover damages for her injuries.
From whom can the sculptor recover?
A The investor, because she breached the implied warranty of habitability.
B The landlord, because he failed to disclose a latent defect.
C The artist, because the artist is considered the sculptor’s landlord.
D No one, because the covenant to repair runs with the land, and the sculptor is bound by it.
B
The landlord is liable for the sculptor’s injuries because he failed to disclose a latent defect. If, at the time the lease is entered into, the landlord knows of a dangerous condition that the tenant could not discover upon reasonable inspection, the landlord has a duty to disclose the dangerous condition. Failure to disclose the information about the condition results in liability for any injury resulting from the condition. Because the landlord knew of the dangerous electrical problem at the time he leased the premises to the artist and did not disclose it to either the artist or the sculptor, he is liable for any injuries resulting from that condition. (A) is wrong for two reasons: (i) the implied warranty of habitability does not apply to commercial leases; and (ii) even if this were a residential lease, it is doubtful that the investor would be liable for a condition of which she had no knowledge or notice. (C) is wrong because it describes the relationship between the artist and the sculptor as though there had been a sublease, when the facts clearly state that the artist assigned the balance of the lease to the sculptor. If a tenant sublets the premises (i.e., the tenant retains part of the remaining term), the tenant is the landlord of the sublessee. The sublessee cannot sue or be sued by the landlord. However, if there has been an assignment (i.e., the tenant makes a complete transfer of the entire term remaining), the assignee is substituted for the original tenant and can sue or be sued by the landlord. The original tenant’s relationship to the assignee is at most that of a surety. Here, because the artist transferred the balance of his lease to the sculptor, there was an assignment and thus the artist cannot be considered the sculptor’s landlord. (D) is wrong because, as stated above, the sculptor can recover from the landlord. The statement that the covenant to repair runs with the land and binds the sculptor is true, but the landlord’s failure to disclose a dangerous preexisting condition renders the landlord liable for the sculptor’s injuries despite the covenant; i.e., the sculptor’s covenant does not relieve the landlord of his tort liability.
A tenant rented an apartment in a large multi-unit building. One day vandals broke into several of the building’s apartments, including the tenant’s, and smeared excrement into the carpets and on the walls, and broke out all of the windows. The jurisdiction provides by statute that if a tenant notifies her landlord in writing of a repair that is needed to keep the premises in a habitable condition and the landlord does not repair it within 15 days, the tenant may, at her option, either repair it herself and withhold the expenses from rent, or consider herself constructively evicted and terminate her tenancy. The tenant wrote a letter to the landlord informing him that her walls, carpets, and windows had been damaged and needed repair, and after eight days she received a letter in reply stating that such damages to her apartment were her responsibility to repair.
After waiting another week, the tenant paid to have her carpets and walls cleaned and to have her windows replaced. She then withheld the entire next month’s rent of $400, because the cleaning and repair bills had totaled $750. After sending her the required statutory notices, the landlord commenced unlawful detainer litigation, seeking to have the tenant evicted for nonpayment of rent.
How should the court rule?
A For the landlord, because the damage was the result of the criminal acts of a third party.
B For the landlord, because the damage was to a private apartment and not to the common areas of the apartment complex.
C For the tenant, if she can show that the landlord was negligent in connection with the vandalism.
D For the tenant, because she satisfied the requirements of the statute.
D
The tenant will win because she had a right under the statute to withhold the rent. The general rule at common law was that the landlord was not liable to the tenant for damages caused by the landlord’s failure to maintain the premises during the period of the leasehold. Today, however, a majority of jurisdictions, usually by statute, provide for an implied warranty of habitability for residential tenancies. The statute in this question allows the tenant to make the repairs and withhold the cost of the repairs 15 days after notifying the landlord in writing. The statute is applicable because the damage done by the vandals makes the apartment unfit for habitation under whatever standard the court would apply. The tenant has complied with the terms of the statute; she therefore cannot be evicted for nonpayment of rent. (A) is incorrect. The fact that the damage was caused by a third party would be relevant only if the tenant were relying on the judicially developed remedy of constructive eviction, which requires that the damage making the premises uninhabitable have been caused by the landlord. The warranty of habitability is not limited in this way. (B) is incorrect because the statute has extended the common law duty of the landlord, which applied only to the common areas of a multiunit building. (C) is incorrect because the tenant does not need to show that the landlord was negligent.
A landlord leased an apartment to a tenant for five years. The lease provided that the landlord will: (i) keep the apartment building at a comfortable temperature 24 hours per day, and (ii) have the carpets cleaned once a year. Two years later, the landlord began turning off the air conditioning at 10 p.m. The tenant’s apartment became hot and stuffy, and she demanded that the landlord honor the covenant. The landlord refused. The following month, the pipes burst in the tenant’s only bathroom, rendering it unusable. The resultant flooding soiled some of the carpeting, which had not been cleaned in the past 12 months. The tenant reported the problems to the landlord, who did not return the tenant’s phone calls.
Which of the following are valid reasons for the tenant to terminate the lease?
A Only that the landlord did not keep the apartment building at a comfortable temperature 24 hours per day.
B Only that the landlord did not fix the bathroom pipes.
C That the landlord did not keep the apartment building at a comfortable temperature 24 hours per day and did not fix the bathroom pipes.
D That the landlord did not keep the apartment building at a comfortable temperature 24 hours per day, did not have the carpets cleaned, and did not fix the bathroom pipes.
B
The tenant will be successful in terminating the lease because the landlord breached the implied warranty of habitability by failing to fix the bathroom pipes. The general rule at common law was that the landlord was not liable to the tenant for damages caused by the landlord’s failure to maintain the premises during the period of the leasehold. Today, however, a majority of jurisdictions, usually by statute, provide for an implied warranty of habitability for residential tenancies. In the absence of a local housing code, the standard applied is whether the conditions are reasonably suitable for human residence. If the landlord breaches the implied warranty, the tenant may: (i) terminate the lease, (ii) make repairs and offset their cost against future rent, (iii) abate rent, or (iv) seek damages. Here, a court is likely to consider the lack of a functioning bathroom as making the premises unsuitable for human residence, allowing the tenant to terminate the lease. (A) is therefore incorrect. (C) would be a stronger answer if the tenant had vacated the premises within a reasonable time. The doctrine of constructive eviction provides that where a landlord does an act or fails to perform some service that he has a legal duty to provide, and thereby makes the property uninhabitable, the tenant may terminate the lease and seek damages. However, a tenant cannot claim a constructive eviction unless: (i) the injurious acts were caused by the landlord, (ii) the premises are uninhabitable, and (iii) the tenant vacates the premises within a reasonable time. Here, the landlord’s failing to keep the apartment building at a comfortable temperature 24 hours per day meets conditions (i) and perhaps (ii), but the tenant remains in possession. Therefore, the tenant cannot claim constructive eviction and (C) is incorrect. (D) is incorrect for the same reason.
