Reading...
Play button
Play button
Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
29 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Quite Enjoyment
|
Every tenant has the right to quiet enjoyment of the leased premises. The obligatino is the duty of the landlord to refrian from wrongful actual or constructive eviction of the tentnat.
|
|
|
Actual Eviction
|
a tenant who has been totally ousted from physical possession of the leased premises-- whether by the landlord or by someone with better title than the landlord--- no longer is obligated to pay rent and may elect to terminate the lease
|
|
|
Constructive Eviction
|
If the landlord substantially interferes with the tenant's use and enjoyment of the leased property-- so much so tha tthe intended puposes of the tenant's occupation is frustrated-- a constructive eviction has occurred.
Remedies: The Tenant may terminate the lease, move out, and thereafter will be excused from any further lease obligations |
|
|
What are the three element of Constructive Eviction?
|
1.) Wrongful act or failure of the landlord
2.) Substantial and material deprivation of the tenant's beneficial use and enjoyment of the premises 3.) Complete vacation of the premises by the tenant |
|
|
Landlord's wrongful action
|
the landlord must act wrongfully. If the alleged wrongful act is the landlord's failure to act, the landlord must be under a duty to act.
- a landlord is responsible for tenant actions that constitute a nuisance or which occur in common areas under the control of the landlord |
|
|
Substantial interference with tenant use and enjoyment
|
the tenant must be so "essentially deprived of the beneficial enjoyment of the leased premises that they are rendered unsuitable for occupancy for the purposes for which they are leased.
|
|
|
Example of Substantial Interference:
Realty Corp v. Cooper |
Cooper was sufficiently deprived of her use and enjoyment of the premises to constitute constructive eviction. Cooper did not waive her claim of constructive eviciton by remaining in possession for an unreasonably long time because after each flooding incidnet she was assured by the landlord's agent that the problem would be corrected and the landlord never corrected
|
|
|
Complete Vacation of the Premises by the Tenant
|
A tenant my not remain in possession and still press a constructive eviction claim. The tenant must completely vacate the premises within a reasonable time after the interference. A "reasonable time" depends on the all the circumstances.
|
|
|
Example of Complete Vacation:
Realty Corp v. Cooper |
The tenant remained in possession through a succession of floods, but was led to believe that the problem might be corrected. She left for good after the last big flood and it was apparent that the problem would not be fixed. That was reasonable.
However, if the tenant moves out and a court later determines that there was no constructive eviction, the tenant has abandoned the leasehold and is very likely liable for unpaid rent or damages from anticipatory repudiation. One solution would be to permit the tenant to bring an action for declaratory relief, prior to vacating the premises, to establish whether it would be constructive eviction if the tenant actually vacates. |
|
|
Warranty of Habitability
|
a landlord has no implied obligation to warrant the property is suitable for the intended purposes of the tenant, so long as the tentnat " has a reasonable opportunity of examining the property and judging for himself as to its qualities."
|
|
|
Quite Enjoyment
|
Every tenant has the right to quiet enjoyment of the leased premises. The obligatino is the duty of the landlord to refrian from wrongful actual or constructive eviction of the tentnat.
|
|
|
Actual Eviction
|
a tenant who has been totally ousted from physical possession of the leased premises-- whether by the landlord or by someone with better title than the landlord--- no longer is obligated to pay rent and may elect to terminate the lease
|
|
|
Constructive Eviction
|
If the landlord substantially interferes with the tenant's use and enjoyment of the leased property-- so much so tha tthe intended puposes of the tenant's occupation is frustrated-- a constructive eviction has occurred.
Remedies: The Tenant may terminate the lease, move out, and thereafter will be excused from any further lease obligations |
|
|
What are the three element of Constructive Eviction?
|
1.) Wrongful act or failure of the landlord
2.) Substantial and material deprivation of the tenant's beneficial use and enjoyment of the premises 3.) Complete vacation of the premises by the tenant |
|
|
Landlord's wrongful action
|
the landlord must act wrongfully. If the alleged wrongful act is the landlord's failure to act, the landlord must be under a duty to act.
- a landlord is responsible for tenant actions that constitute a nuisance or which occur in common areas under the control of the landlord |
|
|
Substantial interference with tenant use and enjoyment
|
the tenant must be so "essentially deprived of the beneficial enjoyment of the leased premises that they are rendered unsuitable for occupancy for the purposes for which they are leased.
|
|
|
Example of Substantial Interference:
Realty Corp v. Cooper |
Cooper was sufficiently deprived of her use and enjoyment of the premises to constitute constructive eviction. Cooper did not waive her claim of constructive eviciton by remaining in possession for an unreasonably long time because after each flooding incidnet she was assured by the landlord's agent that the problem would be corrected and the landlord never corrected
|
|
|
Complete Vacation of the Premises by the Tenant
|
A tenant my not remain in possession and still press a constructive eviction claim. The tenant must completely vacate the premises within a reasonable time after the interference. A "reasonable time" depends on the all the circumstances.
|
|
|
Example of Complete Vacation:
Realty Corp v. Cooper |
The tenant remained in possession through a succession of floods, but was led to believe that the problem might be corrected. She left for good after the last big flood and it was apparent that the problem would not be fixed. That was reasonable.
However, if the tenant moves out and a court later determines that there was no constructive eviction, the tenant has abandoned the leasehold and is very likely liable for unpaid rent or damages from anticipatory repudiation. One solution would be to permit the tenant to bring an action for declaratory relief, prior to vacating the premises, to establish whether it would be constructive eviction if the tenant actually vacates. |
|
|
Warranty of Habitability
|
a landlord has no implied obligation to warrant the property is suitable for the intended purposes of the tenant, so long as the tentnat " has a reasonable opportunity of examining the property and judging for himself as to its qualities."
|
|
|
Tenants remedies after vacation:
|
the tenant's rent liability stops and the lease is terminated upon justified vacation of the premises. The tenant is also entitled to recover damages caused by the constructive eviction
|
|
|
Implied Warranty of Habitability Rationals
|
1.) Landlord tenant lease is a K and quality and fitness should be a part of that contract
2.) urban tenants lack capacity to fit problems 3.) necessyar to redress the unequal bargaining power of rich landlords 4.) encourage complianc ewiht housing codes |
|
|
Implied warranty criticisms
|
it raises landlrod costs and reduces the supply of rental housing because the landlords have an adidtional incentive either to withdraw from the market or improve housing to a point that it no longer accomodates the poor
|
|
|
How is the standard set for IW of Habit?
|
It is usally the standards set by local housing code. However, minor violations of housing codes that do not immediately affect habitability do not trigger the landlord's implied duty. Nor is the landlord in breach until he has been notified of the uninhabitable condition and given a reasonable opportunity to correct the problem.
|
|
|
Tenants Remedies for landlord breach of the implied warranty of habitability
|
a.) Terminate and leave (and recover damages for relocation costs plus the excess of replacement rentals over the lease rentals for the balance of the term)
b. Stay and withhold rent, pending landlord correction of the defects. (T must notify the L of this remedy and deposit rent into an excrow account) c. Stay and Repair d. Stay and recover damages: the tenant may remain in possession and recover damages in the form of a rent abatement or deduction plus (in some jurisdictions) damages for discomfort and annoyance. I. Value as Warrented: The T is entitled to the difference between the value of the premises as warranted and the value of the premises as is, up to the amount of the rent states. e. Stay and defend: prove the landlords breach of the implied warranty as a complete defense to an eviction action based on the tenant's failure to pay rent. After breach and notice to the landlord of the breach, there is no further obligation to pay rent so this is a complete defense. f. Punitive damages- in circumstance involving wilful, wanton, and fraudulent conduct on the part of the landlord a tenant may be entitled to recover punitive damages. |
|
|
Aside from rent what other duties does the Tenant owe the Landlord?
|
1. Not to create waste- Can’t make changes that will change the nature of the property or decrease the permanent value of the property
2. Law of fixtures- if they create one they can not remove it. A fixture is something that once it is installed it is a permanent part of the building. 3. Duty to repair- this is with permissive waste that you have to end up clearing a. If any of these three are violated it should not be a cause to kick out. But the landlord might be entitled to an injuncture. If they are violated the landlord has a contract rememdy |
|
|
Afordable Housing
|
Affordable Housing- Law on economic theory. Most legal remedies can be analyzed by using economics. If you analyze the law by its economic impact
Chicago Board Of Realtors, Inc v. City of Chicago- In this case the ordinance was upheld against a constitutional attack. Judge Posner and Easterbrook two advocates of economic analysis in law concurred expressing the policy view that such requirements benefit in-place tenants at the expense of would be tenants, provide an incentive for landlords to skimp on maintenance, deter the construction of new rental housing, benefit landlords in neighboring jurisdictions that lack rent controls or similar regulations, and produce an inefficient allocation of residential living space. |
|
|
Alice's term of years lease ended on August 31st. She wasn't very satisfied with the apartment she was renting, so she arranged to rent a larger apartment in a better location beginning Sept. 1st. She was on vacation in Europe in August. Prior to leaving she had packed all of her things and was ready to move out or her old place when she returned. Her return flight, scheduled to depart on August 29th, was cancelled because the airline went bankrupt. Alice was unable to arrange for a return flight until Sept. 2nd. When she returned, she found a letter slipped under her door. The letter was from the landlord, and it stated that she was being held to another year's lease. Under the circumstances, a court applying the common law rule would not permit the landlord to take such action.
|
Although this is a perfectly good excuse for being a hold-over tenant, the common law did not recognize excuses and permitted the landlord his/her remedies. One of those remedies was holding the tenant to a new lease. If the previous lease was a term of years, many courts permit the new lease to match the previous term, up to one year.
|
|
|
Tess entered into a lease for a two-story commercial building. She was going to sell custom made dresses. The first floor would be her store, and the second floor her workshop. When she arrived, the first floor was vacant, but the second floor was still occupied by a tax preparation firm. Under the English rule, Tess could:
|
Take possession of the first floor, abate her rent in a way proportionate to her actual possession, and sue the tax preparation firm under the Forcible Entry and Detainer Act. pg 481 note two
|
