TBE--Prop (Property) Flashcards
02/14 #9:
Tom is a single man and currently rents an apartment in Dallas. Texas. Tom’s grandmother, Halah, recently died. Halah’s will left three different parcels of improved property to Tom:
Parcel One:
Halah’s former home, which is located within the City of Dallas and has been in Halah’s family for over I 00 years. This home is comprised of two acres of improved land.
Parcel Two:
Halah’s former ranch retreat consisting of 200 acres of improved land in rural Wise County. Halah won this ranch retreat in a card game in 2010. It was conveyed to Halah by a quitclaim deed.
Parcel Three: Halah’s rural rental property, consisting of 90 acres of land and a farm house, rented to Farmer Brown on a month-to-month lease. This parcel was deeded to
Halah, in the form of a special warranty deed, by her father in 1968, who had received it by quitclaim deed in settlement of a debt in 1945. No title claim has since been made on this parcel.
Assume that the highest quality deed that may be given is a general warranty deed and that the lowest quality deed that may be given is a quitclaim deed.
First and foremost, under Texas Law, you can only claim one Homestead Exemption, so if Tom has an option, he can only claim one. Tom could claim a homestead exemption for the house located in
the city of Dallas. Under Texas law, an urban homestead can comprise of 10 acres and can be used as a residence or a place of business for the individual claiming the homestead exemption. Here the home is
only 2 acres and is within the city of Dallas so it fits under the urban homestead exemption, and Tom can use it as a residence or place of business. The issue that arises is we don’t know how Halah’s family got the house. The facts indicate that it has been in the family for over 100 years, so the title probably doesn’t suffer from any defects or there would’ve been a challenge by now. Also, is so, the family has been in possession for 100 so an argument for adverse possession would come into play.
Under Texas law, for rural homestead exemptions, the home can be used for residential purposes and is 200 acres for family/100 acres for single person. Here the ranch retreat wouldn’t really qualify without
some changes. It is rural because it is in the country but Tom could only claim 100 acres. Also it couldn’t be considered a “ranch retreat” it would have to be for his personal use. Here the Rural Rental property could fall under the rural exemption 90 acres, but Tom couldn’t rent it out to Farmer Brown. Tom would have to end that lease and use the property as his residence.
In conclusion, Tom could opt to claim the urban exemption for the house in Dallas or the Rural Exemption for the rural rental house, if he gave Farmer Brown 30 day notice that he needed to move out. His best
option appears to be Dallas because he won’t have to make any changes to the property or remove any tenants.
02/14 #9:
Tom is a single man and currently rents an apartment in Dallas. Texas. Tom’s grandmother, Halah, recently died. Halah’s will left three different parcels of improved property to Tom:
Parcel One:
Halah’s former home, which is located within the City of Dallas and has been in Halah’s family for over I 00 years. This home is comprised of two acres of improved land.
Parcel Two:
Halah’s former ranch retreat consisting of 200 acres of improved land in rural Wise County. Halah won this ranch retreat in a card game in 2010. It was conveyed to Halah by a quitclaim deed.
Parcel Three: Halah’s rural rental property, consisting of 90 acres of land and a farm house, rented to Farmer Brown on a month-to-month lease. This parcel was deeded to
Halah, in the form of a special warranty deed, by her father in 1968, who had received it by quitclaim deed in settlement of a debt in 1945. No title claim has since been made on this parcel.
Taking into account the brief descriptions given, what is the highest quality of deed that the Executor of Halah ‘s Estate may use to convey:
a. Parcel One to Tom? Explain fully.
b. Parcel Two to Tom? Explain fully.
c. Parcel Three to Tom’? Explain fully.
(a) Parcel appears that it could be conveyed as a general warranty deed because, as mentioned above, it has been in the family for 100 years. The facts do not indicate anyone has contested it and if anyone did contest it, tom would have an adverse possession claim that he would then get adjudicated and he would have a general warranty deed.
(b) Parcel B can only be conveyed as a quit claim deed at this time. Halah won it at a card game as a quit claim deed and she would only be able to convey what she owns, by Texas Law, which is a quit claim deed, it has only been 4 years so it is probably not ripe for and verse possession claim for anything further. Though the Executor or Tom could try to do a title search to see if the grantor to Halah had a
superior interest to convey.
(c) Parcel three could be conveyed as a General warranty deed if after research was done it was found that the encumbrances that once made it a special warranty deed were no gone as previously mentioned usually a grantor can only convey the interest they have, however if encumbrances or conditions on a
special warranty deed are removed, it could become a general warranty deed.
07/13 #5:
Jack planned to attend law school in Texas. Without seeing it, Jack leased an apartment in Texas from Landlord. Jack signed a one (I) year lease with Landlord and wired a security deposit to Landlord.
When Jack arrived in Texas to begin law school, he briefly met with Landlord to take possession of the apartment. Jack found the apartment to be in a great location but not habitable due to a leaky ceiling, two (2) broken windows (both lacking safety latches as well), a broken entry door, a family of rats living in the apartment and a roach infested kitchen. Jack refused to move in and sent Landlord a detailed written notice of termination, listing the foregoing conditions and demanding an immediate return of his security deposit.
Jack found a new apartment and quickly moved in. Jack promptly went to see Landlord to again request a refund of the security deposit. Jack gave Landlord his forwarding address. Landlord agreed to release Jack from the lease, but refused to return the security deposit.
One of Jack’s law school classmates convinced Jack that he should sue Landlord to recover the security deposit. Jack then learned that Landlord had completely repaired, changed the lock and relet the apartment.
Did Landlord have a duty to Jack to repair the apartment? Explain fully.
Landlord did not have a duty to repair the apartment.
The issue is whether Landlord had a duty to repair, even though Jack assented to the lease without seeing it first.
Generally, a tenant is responsible for making repairs to the leased property, but the Landlord has the duty to provide tenant with a habitable premises. The leaky ceiling, broken windows, broken door, rats, and roaches made the apartment uninhabitable. In Texas, a tenant has the right to breach a lease under conditions that make living unsafe, or are a danger to the tenant’s health.
Here, Landlord breached the implied covenant of habitability which provided Jack with two alternatives. Upon realizing that the apartment was uninhabitable, Jack had the right to either fix the problems himself and deduct the costs of remedying the problems from the rent, or terminate the lease. Jack chose to terminate the lease, which relieved Landlord of the duty to repair. Because Jack terminated the lease immediately upon seeing the apartment was uninhabitable; Landlord no longer had a duty to repair the premises.
07/13 #5:
Jack planned to attend law school in Texas. Without seeing it, Jack leased an apartment in Texas from Landlord. Jack signed a one (I) year lease with Landlord and wired a security deposit to Landlord.
When Jack arrived in Texas to begin law school, he briefly met with Landlord to take possession of the apartment. Jack found the apartment to be in a great location but not habitable due to a leaky ceiling, two (2) broken windows (both lacking safety latches as well), a broken entry door, a family of rats living in the apartment and a roach infested kitchen. Jack refused to move in and sent Landlord a detailed written notice of termination, listing the foregoing conditions and demanding an immediate return of his security deposit.
Jack found a new apartment and quickly moved in. Jack promptly went to see Landlord to again request a refund of the security deposit. Jack gave Landlord his forwarding address. Landlord agreed to release Jack from the lease, but refused to return the security deposit.
One of Jack’s law school classmates convinced Jack that he should sue Landlord to recover the security deposit. Jack then learned that Landlord had completely repaired, changed the lock and relet the apartment.
Was Landlord required to return Jack’s security deposit, and, if so, under what time frame and conditions? Explain fully.
Yes, landlord was required to return Jack’s security deposit immediately upon the termination of the lease by Jack.
The issue is whether Jack’s termination of the lease operated as a forfeiture of the security
deposit.
In Texas, a security deposit on a leased premises acts as a reservation of the lease and as security for any damages caused to the property by the tenant.
Because Jack terminated the lease immediately, Landlord had no further right to the deposit as there was no purpose for the security.
07/13 #5:
Jack planned to attend law school in Texas. Without seeing it, Jack leased an apartment in Texas from Landlord. Jack signed a one (I) year lease with Landlord and wired a security deposit to Landlord.
When Jack arrived in Texas to begin law school, he briefly met with Landlord to take possession of the apartment. Jack found the apartment to be in a great location but not habitable due to a leaky ceiling, two (2) broken windows (both lacking safety latches as well), a broken entry door, a family of rats living in the apartment and a roach infested kitchen. Jack refused to move in and sent Landlord a detailed written notice of termination, listing the foregoing conditions and demanding an immediate return of his security deposit.
Jack found a new apartment and quickly moved in. Jack promptly went to see Landlord to again request a refund of the security deposit. Jack gave Landlord his forwarding address. Landlord agreed to release Jack from the lease, but refused to return the security deposit.
One of Jack’s law school classmates convinced Jack that he should sue Landlord to recover the security deposit. Jack then learned that Landlord had completely repaired, changed the lock and relet the apartment.
Did Landlord have the right to change the lock on the apartment? Explain fully.
Yes, Landlord had the right to change the lock on the apartment.
The issue is whether Jack had any interest in the apartment that was violated by the change of the locks.
Under the Texas Property Code, a Landlord accepts surrender of a property when he releases a tenant from a lease and takes back possession of the property and relets it to a subsequent tenant.
Because Jack terminated the lease, he no longer had an interest in the apartment, and had given up his rights to the apartment. Therefore, the act of changing the locks did not violate any rights Jack had.
02/13 #2:
Ranger Inc. obtained a loan from Bank to purchase 500 acres of land located partially in Bexar County, Texas, and partially in Coma! County, Texas (collectively, the “ Property”). Ranger Inc. executed, and Bank properly recorded, a first lien deed of trust on the Property in both counties. The loan terms provided for monthly repayment of principal plus interest, along with other standard commercial loan terms.
Ranger Inc. subsequently defaulted on its loan to Bank and stopped making its monthly payments. Bank informed Ranger Inc. that it was accelerating the maturity of Ranger Inc.’s loan and opting to sell the Property under the power of sale conferred by the deed of trust. On December 23rd, Bank sent Ranger Inc., via certified mail, a “Notice of Trustee’s Sale” with the following information:
A public sale at auction of the Property will be held on Monday, January 1Oth, at 8:00a.m. at the Bank’s home office in Travis County, Texas.
The Bank posted its “Notice of Trustee’s Sale” solely at
(i) a fire station in Bexar County nearest the Property and
(ii) the courthouse door of the Bexar County Courthouse.
The Bexar County Commissioner’s
Court had previously designated the south steps of the Bexar County Courthouse as the place where the trustee’s sales are to take place. The Comal County Commissioner’s Court had previously designated the south steps of the Comal County Courthouse as the place where the trustee’s sales are to take place.
On January lOth at 8:00a.m., the Bank held a public sale of the Property at the Bank’s home office in Travis County, Texas and sold the Property to Jack for an amount that was $500,000 less than what was owed to the Bank by Ranger Inc. The Trustee gave to Jack a “Trustee’s Deed” conveying the Property to Jack.
Was the “Notice of Trustee’s Sale” the Bank sent to Ranger Inc. valid? Explain fully.
A notice of foreclosure must follow statutory guidelines. Specifically, the notice must reflect the appropriate time, place, and manner of sale with specificity in order to comply with due process. Under the applicable statute, foreclosure sales must take place on the first Tuesday of every month between 10:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. at a place designated by the local commissioners in the county. A foreclosure is proper in the county where the real property is located.
02/13 #2:
Ranger Inc. obtained a loan from Bank to purchase 500 acres of land located partially in Bexar County, Texas, and partially in Coma! County, Texas (collectively, the “ Property”). Ranger Inc. executed, and Bank properly recorded, a first lien deed of trust on the Property in both counties. The loan terms provided for monthly repayment of principal plus interest, along with other standard commercial loan terms.
Ranger Inc. subsequently defaulted on its loan to Bank and stopped making its monthly payments. Bank informed Ranger Inc. that it was accelerating the maturity of Ranger Inc.’s loan and opting to sell the Property under the power of sale conferred by the deed of trust. On December 23rd, Bank sent Ranger Inc., via certified mail, a “Notice of Trustee’s Sale” with the following information:
A public sale at auction of the Property will be held on Monday, January 1Oth, at 8:00a.m. at the Bank’s home office in Travis County, Texas.
The Bank posted its “Notice of Trustee’s Sale” solely at
(i) a fire station in Bexar County nearest the Property and
(ii) the courthouse door of the Bexar County Courthouse.
The Bexar County Commissioner’s
Court had previously designated the south steps of the Bexar County Courthouse as the place where the trustee’s sales are to take place. The Comal County Commissioner’s Court had previously designated the south steps of the Comal County Courthouse as the place where the trustee’s sales are to take place.
On January lOth at 8:00a.m., the Bank held a public sale of the Property at the Bank’s home office in Travis County, Texas and sold the Property to Jack for an amount that was $500,000 less than what was owed to the Bank by Ranger Inc. The Trustee gave to Jack a “Trustee’s Deed” conveying the Property to Jack.
Did the Bank properly post its “Notice of Trustee’s Sale”? Explain fully.
Notice of Trustee’s Sale was not properly posted. The posting of the notice was invalid for several reasons. At issue here is what is required to constitute properly posted notice in a foreclosure sale in Texas. Texas property law requires that the foreclosing party give notice publicly by posting the properly written notice (as described above) at the county courthouse in the county in which the property is located (if it is located in more than one county, then notice must be posted at each county court house in which part of the property is situated). Additionally, notice is to be given to each creditor who has an interest in the property (such as lien holders, etc.).
02/13 #2:
Ranger Inc. obtained a loan from Bank to purchase 500 acres of land located partially in Bexar County, Texas, and partially in Coma! County, Texas (collectively, the “ Property”). Ranger Inc. executed, and Bank properly recorded, a first lien deed of trust on the Property in both counties. The loan terms provided for monthly repayment of principal plus interest, along with other standard commercial loan terms.
Ranger Inc. subsequently defaulted on its loan to Bank and stopped making its monthly payments. Bank informed Ranger Inc. that it was accelerating the maturity of Ranger Inc.’s loan and opting to sell the Property under the power of sale conferred by the deed of trust. On December 23rd, Bank sent Ranger Inc., via certified mail, a “Notice of Trustee’s Sale” with the following information:
A public sale at auction of the Property will be held on Monday, January 1Oth, at 8:00a.m. at the Bank’s home office in Travis County, Texas.
The Bank posted its “Notice of Trustee’s Sale” solely at
(i) a fire station in Bexar County nearest the Property and
(ii) the courthouse door of the Bexar County Courthouse.
The Bexar County Commissioner’s
Court had previously designated the south steps of the Bexar County Courthouse as the place where the trustee’s sales are to take place. The Comal County Commissioner’s Court had previously designated the south steps of the Comal County Courthouse as the place where the trustee’s sales are to take place.
On January lOth at 8:00a.m., the Bank held a public sale of the Property at the Bank’s home office in Travis County, Texas and sold the Property to Jack for an amount that was $500,000 less than what was owed to the Bank by Ranger Inc. The Trustee gave to Jack a “Trustee’s Deed” conveying the Property to Jack.
Would a lawsuit filed by Ranger Inc. to invalidate the sale to Jack likely be successful? Explain fully.
Under the Texas Property Code, strict compliance with the rules and requirements of foreclosure are required. If the Notice of the Trustee’s sale that the Bank sent Ranger had just one thing wrong with it that was otherwise required under the Texas Property Code, the sale could be invalidated by Ranger. In Texas, if creditors want to do a non-judicial foreclosure, they absolutely must follow all of the rules under the Texas Property Code regarding notice and other requirements before the sale or else the sale is going to be set aside.
02/13 #2:
Ranger Inc. obtained a loan from Bank to purchase 500 acres of land located partially in Bexar County, Texas, and partially in Coma! County, Texas (collectively, the “ Property”). Ranger Inc. executed, and Bank properly recorded, a first lien deed of trust on the Property in both counties. The loan terms provided for monthly repayment of principal plus interest, along with other standard commercial loan terms.
Ranger Inc. subsequently defaulted on its loan to Bank and stopped making its monthly payments. Bank informed Ranger Inc. that it was accelerating the maturity of Ranger Inc.’s loan and opting to sell the Property under the power of sale conferred by the deed of trust. On December 23rd, Bank sent Ranger Inc., via certified mail, a “Notice of Trustee’s Sale” with the following information:
A public sale at auction of the Property will be held on Monday, January 1Oth, at 8:00a.m. at the Bank’s home office in Travis County, Texas.
The Bank posted its “Notice of Trustee’s Sale” solely at
(i) a fire station in Bexar County nearest the Property and
(ii) the courthouse door of the Bexar County Courthouse.
The Bexar County Commissioner’s
Court had previously designated the south steps of the Bexar County Courthouse as the place where the trustee’s sales are to take place. The Comal County Commissioner’s Court had previously designated the south steps of the Comal County Courthouse as the place where the trustee’s sales are to take place.
On January lOth at 8:00a.m., the Bank held a public sale of the Property at the Bank’s home office in Travis County, Texas and sold the Property to Jack for an amount that was $500,000 less than what was owed to the Bank by Ranger Inc. The Trustee gave to Jack a “Trustee’s Deed” conveying the Property to Jack.
Does Jack take title to the Property with any express or implied warranties? Explain fully.
a trustee deed does not carry with it any implied or express warranties. At issue is what warranties are included when a purchaser takes title under a Trustee’s Deed. Warranties arise under a warranty deed, not a trustees’ deed. A warranty deed will convey 6 covenants:
1) the right to seisin,
2) the right to convey,
3) the right to quiet enjoyment,
4) the right to further assurances,
5) the right against encumbrances, and
6) warranty.
Unless the court deems this trustee deed to be a warranty deed, Jack will not gain any implied warranties and there are no express warranties that seems to arise in these facts.
07/12 #9:
Rob, a 36-year-old single man, owned in fee simple an unencumbered 500-acre tract of land in Texas that had been owned by his family since before Texas became part of the United States of America. The 500- acre tract was within the extraterritorial jurisdiction of City (a recognized municipality), was served by a volunteer fire department, and had access to City’s electric services, but no other utilities.
Allyson agreed to purchase 300 acres out of the 500-acre tract. She demanded that Rob convey the 300 acres to her by a valid deed of the highest quality. Immediately after the sale to Allyson, Rob claimed a homestead exemption for the remaining 200 acres.
After recording the deed from Rob, Allyson sold 50 acres out of her 300 acres to her sister, Emily. The deed from Allyson to Emily was signed by Allyson and adequately described the 50 acres, but it was not
acknowledged by a notary public or otherwise witnessed.
Shortly after Allyson’s sale of the 50-acre tract to Emily, Emily validly established her homestead on the 50-acre tract. She then applied to ABC Bank for a line-of-credit loan to finance daily operations of her business and pledged the 50-acre tract as collateral for the loan. She later defaulted on the loan, and ABC Bank sought to enforce its lien on the 50-acre tract.
What is the highest quality of deed Rob could use under the circumstances to convey the
300-acre tract to Allyson? Explain fully.
The highest quality of deed Rob could use under the circumstances to convey the tract to Allyson is a general warranty deed.
At issue is the interest a property owner has in property when he is not able to trace title back to its origination.
Under Texas law, a property owner may only convey the property interest he owns. If the property owner does not have a fee simple absolute in the property, meaning total ownership of the tract in fee simple absolute, then he cannot convey full interest in the property to another person. Because property owners might have different levels of interest in property, Texas law allows the property owner to convey his interest in the property by different instruments.
A property owner may execute a quitclaim deed, the least desirable type of deed, a special warranty deed or a general warranty deed, the most desirable type.
A quitclaim deed is a deed that purports to convey whatever interest the property owner has in the property because he does not know what interest he owns. This is the least quality of deed because an property owner may have a minuscule interest in the property and the deed is only conveying that minuscule interest.
A special warranty deed purports to convey the entire interest in the property but the property owner does not make any assurances as to what interests property owners who owned the tract before his inception of title might have.
The highest quality of deed is a general warranty deed where the owner purports to convey his entire interest in the land, which is 100% of the interest, and makes a warranty that not others have an interest in the property unless specifically stated (i.e. someone might have a mineral interest in the property). Because a general warranty deed purports to convey the entire tract of land with no encumbrances, certain warranties are also included in the deed (i.e. warranty of seisin, warranty against encumbrances, warranty of further assurances, etc.).
07/12 #9:
Rob, a 36-year-old single man, owned in fee simple an unencumbered 500-acre tract of land in Texas that had been owned by his family since before Texas became part of the United States of America. The 500- acre tract was within the extraterritorial jurisdiction of City (a recognized municipality), was served by a volunteer fire department, and had access to City’s electric services, but no other utilities.
Allyson agreed to purchase 300 acres out of the 500-acre tract. She demanded that Rob convey the 300 acres to her by a valid deed of the highest quality. Immediately after the sale to Allyson, Rob claimed a homestead exemption for the remaining 200 acres.
After recording the deed from Rob, Allyson sold 50 acres out of her 300 acres to her sister, Emily. The deed from Allyson to Emily was signed by Allyson and adequately described the 50 acres, but it was not
acknowledged by a notary public or otherwise witnessed.
Shortly after Allyson’s sale of the 50-acre tract to Emily, Emily validly established her homestead on the 50-acre tract. She then applied to ABC Bank for a line-of-credit loan to finance daily operations of her business and pledged the 50-acre tract as collateral for the loan. She later defaulted on the loan, and ABC Bank sought to enforce its lien on the 50-acre tract.
Is the homestead exemption Rob claimed in the remaining 200 acres valid? Explain fully.
In Texas, a couple is able to claim 10 acres of urban property for a homestead exemption and 200 acres of rural property for the exemption. A single person may only claim 100 acres of rural property for the homestead exemption. In addition, under Texas law, a person may only have one property as a homestead. In Texas, a property is considered rural if it is significantly detached from the city limits and is an urban property as apparent on its face.
07/12 #9:
Rob, a 36-year-old single man, owned in fee simple an unencumbered 500-acre tract of land in Texas that had been owned by his family since before Texas became part of the United States of America. The 500- acre tract was within the extraterritorial jurisdiction of City (a recognized municipality), was served by a volunteer fire department, and had access to City’s electric services, but no other utilities.
Allyson agreed to purchase 300 acres out of the 500-acre tract. She demanded that Rob convey the 300 acres to her by a valid deed of the highest quality. Immediately after the sale to Allyson, Rob claimed a homestead exemption for the remaining 200 acres.
After recording the deed from Rob, Allyson sold 50 acres out of her 300 acres to her sister, Emily. The deed from Allyson to Emily was signed by Allyson and adequately described the 50 acres, but it was not
acknowledged by a notary public or otherwise witnessed.
Shortly after Allyson’s sale of the 50-acre tract to Emily, Emily validly established her homestead on the 50-acre tract. She then applied to ABC Bank for a line-of-credit loan to finance daily operations of her business and pledged the 50-acre tract as collateral for the loan. She later defaulted on the loan, and ABC Bank sought to enforce its lien on the 50-acre tract.
Was the deed Emily received from Allyson valid to convey the 50 acres to Emily and was
it recordable? Explain fully.
In Texas, a deed must be signed by the party against whom enforcement is sought and also must state that price for the property and give a reasonable description of the tract to be conveyed. In addition, the deed must either be notarized or signed by two witnesses. In order to be recordable, the deed must meet the latter requirements.
07/12 #9:
Rob, a 36-year-old single man, owned in fee simple an unencumbered 500-acre tract of land in Texas that had been owned by his family since before Texas became part of the United States of America. The 500- acre tract was within the extraterritorial jurisdiction of City (a recognized municipality), was served by a volunteer fire department, and had access to City’s electric services, but no other utilities.
Allyson agreed to purchase 300 acres out of the 500-acre tract. She demanded that Rob convey the 300 acres to her by a valid deed of the highest quality. Immediately after the sale to Allyson, Rob claimed a homestead exemption for the remaining 200 acres.
After recording the deed from Rob, Allyson sold 50 acres out of her 300 acres to her sister, Emily. The deed from Allyson to Emily was signed by Allyson and adequately described the 50 acres, but it was not
acknowledged by a notary public or otherwise witnessed.
Shortly after Allyson’s sale of the 50-acre tract to Emily, Emily validly established her homestead on the 50-acre tract. She then applied to ABC Bank for a line-of-credit loan to finance daily operations of her business and pledged the 50-acre tract as collateral for the loan. She later defaulted on the loan, and ABC Bank sought to enforce its lien on the 50-acre tract.
Did ABC Bank have an enforceable lien on Emily’s 50-acre homestead tract? Explain
fully.
In Texas, in order to have a valid lien on property, the lien holder must file the lien in the county where property is held to give others notice of the lien. If the deed of the conveyance to the person who is mortgaging the property has not been recorded and the lien holder then records their security interest, the lien is considered “wild” because a person searching the county’s grantee-grantor index would not be able to tell what property to which the lien attached by performing a regular title search. Furthermore, a bank is not able to foreclose a security interest on property which is a person’s homestead when the lien is not a purchase money mortgage used to finance purchase of the property.
02/12 #6:
Tenant lives in a house in Waco, Texas leased from Landlord for a period of five years ending December 2013. The lease, which is in writing and signed by both Landlord and Tenant, is not witnessed,
notarized, or recorded. The lease is silent regarding events that might justify early termination and regarding who is responsible for repairs and maintenance. Tenant is current on all rent obligations to Landlord.
Tenant hired a contractor to remodel the bathroom and install a new shower. Tenant was displeased with the placement of the shower, refused to pay the contractor and relocated the shower on his own. In the
process, Tenant disrupted the plumbing so that there is now improper drainage. He gave notice to Landlord of the improper drainage and requested that Landlord remedy it at Landlord’s expense.
In addition, Tenant has given Landlord notice of the following matters and demands that Landlord remedy them at Landlord’s expense:
(a) the roof recently developed leaks and needs to be repaired;
(b) the kitchen walls have become smoke-stained over the last three years and need to be repainted;
(c) the smoke detectors installed by Landlord at the commencement of the lease no longer work and need to be replaced; and
(d) the window latches on two of the exterior windows, which were broken by Tenant’s carelessness, need to be replaced.
The City of Waco is taking an easement for a sewer line across the front lawn of the property under its power of eminent domain and will pay a condemnation award for such taking.
Landlord recently received an offer from Buyer to purchase the house. Buyer is concerned about the presence of the lease, and Tenant has said he will not voluntarily vacate the property.
Is the lease valid? Explain fully.
(1) Yes, the lease is valid.
The question that arises is whether the facts that the lease was not witnessed, notarized, or recorded affect the validity of the lease.
A landlord-tenant relationship arises from an agreement in which a property owner gives another person exclusive possession of certain property during an agreed term. In consideration for the right of possession, the tenant agrees to pay rent and comply with other conditions and covenants of the agreement. To be enforceable, lease agreements for a term longer than one year must comply with the Statute of Frauds, which requires the lease to be memorialized in writing and signed by the person to be charged with the promise or agreement. There is no requirement that a lease be filed of record to be a valid or enforceable contract.
Since the lease has been signed by both Landlord and Tenant, the lease agreement is valid and enforceable.
02/12 #6:
Tenant lives in a house in Waco, Texas leased from Landlord for a period of five years ending December 2013. The lease, which is in writing and signed by both Landlord and Tenant, is not witnessed,
notarized, or recorded. The lease is silent regarding events that might justify early termination and regarding who is responsible for repairs and maintenance. Tenant is current on all rent obligations to Landlord.
Tenant hired a contractor to remodel the bathroom and install a new shower. Tenant was displeased with the placement of the shower, refused to pay the contractor and relocated the shower on his own. In the
process, Tenant disrupted the plumbing so that there is now improper drainage. He gave notice to Landlord of the improper drainage and requested that Landlord remedy it at Landlord’s expense.
In addition, Tenant has given Landlord notice of the following matters and demands that Landlord remedy them at Landlord’s expense:
(a) the roof recently developed leaks and needs to be repaired;
(b) the kitchen walls have become smoke-stained over the last three years and need to be repainted;
(c) the smoke detectors installed by Landlord at the commencement of the lease no longer work and need to be replaced; and
(d) the window latches on two of the exterior windows, which were broken by Tenant’s carelessness, need to be replaced.
The City of Waco is taking an easement for a sewer line across the front lawn of the property under its power of eminent domain and will pay a condemnation award for such taking.
Landlord recently received an offer from Buyer to purchase the house. Buyer is concerned about the presence of the lease, and Tenant has said he will not voluntarily vacate the property.
What are Landlord’s statutory responsibilities, if any, with regard to the drainage problem, roof leaks, kitchen painting, smoke detectors, and broken window latches? Explain fully.
(2) Landlord has statutory responsibilities to repair the roof leaks, smoke detectors, and broken window latches, but has no statutory responsibility to repair the drainage problem or to paint the kitchen.
The issue of statutory duty requires an examination of the statutes to determine why Landlord does or does not have a duty to make repairs in each case.
Landlords must comply with detailed statutory provisions concerning security devices in residential housing. Window latches on exterior windows of the dwelling are considered “security devices” under the statute. During the term of the lease, a landlord must repair or replace a security device on request or notification by the tenant that the device is inoperable or in need of repair or replacement. A landlord may require payment by the tenant for such repairs or replacement if it is necessitated by misuse or damage by the tenant.
Therefore, Landlord is required by statute to repair or replace the window latches because they are security devices and Tenant has requested their repair or replacement. However, since the window latches were damaged by Tenant’s carelessness, Landlord can require Tenant to pay for such repairs or replacement.
On receipt of proper notice, a landlord has a duty to inspect and repair a smoke detector during the term of a lease. This is at the expense of the landlord unless the need for repair or replacement is caused by the tenant.
Therefore, Landlord is required by statute to repair or replace the smoke detector since Tenant has properly notified Landlord.
The landlord in a residential rental agreement has a statutory duty to make a diligent effort to repair certain conditions that materially affect the physical health or safety of an ordinary tenant unless the condition is caused by the tenant. The notice is not required to be in writing unless the lease is in writing and requires written notice.
The leaky roof could be considered a circumstance which can materially affect the physical health or safety of Tenant inasmuch as the continued introduction of moisture from the leaky roof could cause the ceiling in the residence to collapse as well as encourage the development of mold in the residence. The drainage problem also could be considered a condition that could affect the physical health or safety of Tenant. However, the drainage problem was not caused by wear and tear but rather by Tenant’s unauthorized disruption of the plumbing and, therefore, is not covered by the statute and does not create a duty on the part of Landlord to repair. Finally, the need for repainting in the kitchen would not be considered such a condition and would not be covered by the statute.
