Landlord-Tenant Relations

Question 1

Landlord-tenant

Answer 1

1) O–>A for years; housing as a public utility (rather than private, unrestricted endeavor)

Question 2

i) implied covenant of rent:

Answer 2

reasonable amount

Question 3

ii) No implied covenant prop suited for tenant’s intended use but…

Answer 3

1) LL owes a duty to disclose defects that cannot be reas’ly discovered by tenant and 2) LL cannot make false/fraudulent representations that the land is suitable for the intended use if he knows

Question 4

(1) Anderson Drive-in:

Answer 4

not suitable for drive-in theater (muddy); LL knew–>for LL since it was reas’ly discoverable and he made no explicit claims of suitability in lease
(a) FT: wrong; rule is unfair/encourages waste (uneconomical); LL in best position to disclose defect and should have to if it goes to heart of transaction; should be explicit in K if LL doesn’t want to guarantee

Question 5

iii) Duty to put tenant in legal possession at lease-start, but what about actual possession?
American rule:

Answer 5

no duty to lessee against wrongful acts of strangers; lessee must sue 3p, not LL
(a) rationale: 1) tenant has remedy against wrongful possessor; 2) unreas. to hold LL liable for 3p’s wrong; 3) estate is technically the lessee’s when the lease starts (estate for years) (counter: “apparent agency”)

Question 6

iii) Duty to put tenant in legal possession at lease-start, but what about actual possession?
English rule:

Answer 6

duty to ensure actual possession at start of term; tenant can sue LL
(a) rationale: 1) LL in better position to prevent wrongful possession; 2) tenant made K w/ expectations of actual possession

Question 7

iii) Duty to put tenant in legal possession at lease-start, but what about actual possession?
Rabinowitz:

Answer 7

LL liable to tenant when prior possessor overstayed lease/refused to vacate

Question 8

Implied Warranty of Habitability

Answer 8

(Unwaivable): IWH –>LL must keep premises fit for habitation (repair/maintenance)—according to housing codes—and cannot evict tenant in retaliation for failure to pay rent or reporting violations

Question 9

IMH Breach Remedy

Answer 9

withhold rent: constructive eviction not feasible (lack of resources, need a place to live)

Question 10

IMH

iii) Javins:

Answer 10

instituted IWH; overturned CL rule that tenant responsible for habitability; rationale:

(1) apt-based tenancy dif from agrarian context of CL
(2) unequal bargaining power (tenants have little leverage to require better conditions)

Question 11

IMH

iv) Habib:

Answer 11

while LL may evict for legal reason or no reason at all, cannot evict in response to report of violation

(1) rationale: 1) expense of moving, 2) unequal bargaining power, 3) social/econ importance of min standards
(2) prob: can evict for “no reason at all”–>how to prove eviction was in retaliation?

Question 12

IMH

(a) Walls:

Answer 12

LLs have no duty to protect tenants from crim attacks EXCEPT when:

1. known phys defect on premises that foreseeably enhances risk
2. clearly foreseeable (regardless of defects); (i.e. high-crime area)
3. LL gratuitously/contractually provides security
   a. FT: discourages security
   (ii) F: woman raped in parking lot where multiple crimes had taken place (not rape)remanded

Question 13

v) Extension of IWH (commercial leases, homes):

Answer 13

unequal bargaining power big factor so not as likely for commercial leases; but more likely for homes (state dependent)

Question 14

a) Assignment:

Answer 14

privity of K between assignee/LL; LL has legal remedy over assignee. Original lease terms imputed

Question 15

b) Sublease

Answer 15

doesn’t create legal obligation from subtenant to LL. Subtenant–>Tenant–>LL. Original K doesn’t apply

Question 16

Assignment or Sublease?

i) CL rule:

Answer 16

if tenant reserves some interest in prop (doesn’t transfer full interest), it is a sublease; if tenant conveys all interest (for full term), it is an assignment
(1) harsh rule: problems: if subtenant thinks it’s a sublease and pays rent, he can also be held liable for rent to LL if its an assignment; if tenant thinks it’s a sublease and charges high rent, if assignment, gets nothing

Question 17

Assignment or Sublease?

ii) Intention-based rule:

Answer 17

intent of parties (as shown in K) determines classification

Question 18

Assignment or Sublease?

(1) Jaber:

Answer 18

original lease termination via fire; if assignment, ∆ sub must still pay tenant because installments = purchase payments for assignment; if sublease, ∆ does not have to pay installments because payments = rent–>assignment since K said “assignment”

Question 19

a) Abandonment

Answer 19

i) Can LL relet if tenant abandons (even though technically tenant still has legal interest)termination clause used to get around this
ii) Duty to Mitigate?
(1) Traditional rule: no duty to mitigate: unfair to create aff’mative duty for actions of other
(2) Duty to mitigate rule: obligation to take commercially reas. steps to mitigate losses (relet): economical

Question 20

a) Abandonment

Reid:

Answer 20

∆ abandoned; Court said it wasn’t constructive eviction (noisy neighbors); π relet–>damages off-set by reletting

Question 21

b) Constructive Eviction:

Answer 21

implied covenant of quiet enjoyment allows tenant to vacate w/o paying rent for actions that substantially affect tenant’s beneficial enjoyment for purposes contemplated by the tenancy
i) BUT the tenant must actually vacate the premises if he can w/in reas. time or waive right to not pay rent

Question 22

Constructive Eviction:

(1) Swords:

Answer 22

Texaco sign taken down (against K: commercial traffic); didn’t vacate–>while tenant had ability to vacate w/o paying rent, he must pay rent since he did not do so
(a) damages (not eviction/termination) is remedy for breach of covFT: π should have argued for damages since it may have been unreas. for him to leave (he was just trying to get LL to pay)!

Question 23

5) Rent Control (now, urban housing seen more as a public utility subject to more regulation)

Answer 23

a) prob w/ RC: only way for LL to make more is to lower operating costs (lower standards)state regs not a magic pill for affordable, high standard housing

Question 24

b) Mobile homes:

Answer 24

not mobile–>tenant owns home, but pays rent on “pad”

Question 25

i) Yee:

Answer 25

rent control statute prohibiting eviction and prohibiting ability to deny tenants is NOT a per se “physical intrusion” taking since gov is not intruding, but just regulating activity that would happen otherwise

(1) F: π park owners want comp claiming that it’s a physical intrusion to require them to have certain tenants permanently–>not a physical intrusion
(2) FT: should have argued for regulatory Penn Central taking, not a physical per se intrusion