Study your flashcards anywhere!

Download the official Cram app for free >

  • Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Read
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
Reading...
Front

How to study your flashcards.

Right/Left arrow keys: Navigate between flashcards.right arrow keyleft arrow key

Up/Down arrow keys: Flip the card between the front and back.down keyup key

H key: Show hint (3rd side).h key

A key: Read text to speech.a key

image

Play button

image

Play button

image

Progress

1/38

Click to flip

38 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back
DOES PRIVITY OF ESTATE EXIST BETWEEN LL AND TENANT?
YES
DOES PRIVITY OF ESTATE EXIST BETWEEN LL AND TENANT'S ASSIGNEE?
YES
DOES PRIVITY OF ESTATE EXIST BETWEEN LL AND TENANT'S SUBLESSEE?
NO
DOES PRIVITY OF K EXIST BETWEEN LL AND TENANT AFTER TENANT TRANSFERS BY ASSIGNMENT?
YES
DOES PRIVITY OF K EXIST BETWEEN LL AND TENANT AFTER TENANT TRANSFERS BY SUBLEASE?
YES
WHAT IS A SURETY?
SOMETIMES IT IS HELD THAT A TENANT, UPON ASSIGNMENT, BECOMES LIABLE FOR RENT AS A SURETY--SOMEONE AGAINST WHOM RECOVERY CAN BE HAD IF THE ASSIGNEE DOES NOT PAY
WHAT DOES SUBROGATION MEAN IN TERMS OF TRANSFERRING LEASES?
IF TENANT IS FORCED TO PAY RENT DUE FROM AN ASSIGNEE, THE TENANT MAY SUE THE ASSIGNEE TO RECOVER WHAT WAS PAID
COVENANT OF QUIET ENJOYMENT
A PROMISE ON THE PART OF THE LL THAT NEITHER THE LL NOR ANYONE WITH EITHER A SUPERIOR TITLE OR A TITLE DERIVATIVE OF THE LL WILL WRONGFULLY INTERFERE WITH THE T'S USE AND ENJOYMENT OF THE PROPERTY
CONSTRUCTIVE EVICTION ELEMENTS
1. INTENTION ON THE PART OF THE LL THAT THE T NO LONGER USE/ENJOY THE PROPERTY
2. ACT BY LL THAT MATERIALLY INTERFERES WITH THE T'S USE/ENJOYMENT OR PURPOSES FOR WHICH THEY ARE RENTING
3. ACT BY LL THAT PERMANENTLY DEPRIVES THE T OF THE USE/ENJOYMENT OF THE PREMISES
4. ABANDONMENT OF PREMISES BY T AFTER A REASONABLE AMT OF TIME GIVEN TO LL TO CURE
UNIFORM DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACT (1943)
ALLOWS FOR STATUTORY ACTION (SUIT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT) TO DETERMINE RIGHTS, STATUS, ETC. SO YOU CAN KNOW IF YOU'VE BEEN CONSTRUCTIVELY EVICTED OR NOT (WHETHER TO ABANDON OR NOT)
IN TX, DOES THE LL HAVE A DUTY TO MITIGATE IF THE T ABANDONS?
YES
IN TX, WHAT OPTIONS DOES A LL HAVE IF THE T ABANDONS?
ELECT-
1. CAN SUE FOR ANTICIPATORY BREACH
2. CAN SUE AS RENTS BECOME DUE
DOES TX FOLLOW THE AMERICAN OR ENGLISH RULE RE: ASSIGNMENTS AND SUBLEASES? WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?
ENGLISH; IN AN ASSIGNMENT, LL GOES AFTER T2; IN A SUBLEASE, LL GOES AFTER T1, AND T1 GOES AFTER T2
TENANCY AT SUFFERANCE
HOLDOVER TENANT
WHY CAN A LL RECOVER AGAINST A HOLDOVER TENANT IN QUASI-K?
T IS BEING UNJUSTLY ENRICHED
IN TX, IS HOLDOVER TENANCY A REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION?
YES
IN TX, WHAT OPTIONS DOES A LL HAVE IF THE T HOLDS OVER?
ELECT:
1. CAN TREAT T AS A TRESPASSER
1. CAN RENEW THE LEASE
PROPERTY CODE 92.061
IMPLIED WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY
CH. 37 CIVIL PRACTICE AND REMEDIES CODE
UNIFORM DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACT
PROPERTY CODE 92.052
LL MUST MAINTAIN PROPERTY AS IT AFFECTS PHYSICAL HEALTH AND SAFETY
NO DUTY DOCTRINE
WHERE DEFECT IS OPEN AND OBVIOUS, THE LL OWES NO DUTY TO T OR THE T'S INVITEE
DOES THE "NO DUTY DOCTRINE" APPLY IN TX?
NO
PROPERTY CODE 91.005
IF LEASE IS SILENT AS TO WHETHER T MAY RENT TO ANOTHER, T MAY NOT RENT TO ANOTHER WITHOUT PRIOR CONSENT OF LL
PROPERTY CODE 91.006
LL MUST MITIGATE DAMAGES IF T ABANDONS
LA LEASING CO V SOKOLOW
CONSTRUCTIVE EVICTION CASE; PEOPLE WHO MOVE IN DOWNSTAIRS FROM KIDS HAVE NOT BE CE
BROWN V SOUTHALL
ILLEGALITY BECAUSE OF LACK OF HABITABILITY CASE; D EXCUSED FROM PAYING RENT AS PREMISES OUT OF CODE AND UNSAFE/UNSANITARY
PUGH V HOLMES
IMPLIED WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY CASE; D REFUSES TO PAY RENT AND INSTEAD OFFSETS IT AGAINST REPAIRS; CT FINDS COVENANT AND WARRANTY DEPENDENT--IF A MATERIAL BREACH OCCURS, OTHER PARTY'S PERFORMANCE EXCUSED; THIS CASE ILLUSTRATES A BIG POLICY CHANGE FROM CAVEAT EMPTOR TO IMPLIED WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY
KAMERATH
IMPLIED WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY CASE; INSTITUTED IWH IN TX BUT NO LONGER GOOD LAW WITH INCEPTION OF PROPERTY CODE
DAVIDOW V INWOOD N PROFESSIONAL GROUP
IMPLIED WARRANTY OF SUITABILITY CASE (COMMERICAL)
WILLIAMS V MELBY
LL'S LIABILITY IN TORT CASE; WOMAN ROLLS OUT OF BED AND THROUGH WINDOW; POLICY EXCEPTION (LL NEGLIGENCE) TO STRICT CAVEAT EMPTOR
PARKER V HIGHLAND PARK
LL'S LIABILITY IN TORT CASE; TX CASE; WOMAN (INVITEE OF T) FALLS DOWN DARK STAIRWAY; NO REOCVERY B/C OF NO DUTY DOCTRINE, SUPREME CT REVERSES
JABER V MILLER
TRANSFERS CASE; CT FIRST FOLLOWS ENGLISH RULE IN ORDER TO DETERMINE LIABILITY--B/C T1 TRANSFERRED ESTATE FOR LESS THAN THE ENTIRE TERM AND HAD RIGHT TO RE-ENTRY, ITS A SL, REGARDLESS OF INTENT. SUPREME CT OVERTURNS, ELIMINATES ENGLISH RULE, LOOKS AT INTENT.
DAVIS V MCDONNELL
TX CASE; TRANSFERS CASE; TX GOES WITH MAJORITY ENGLISH RULE
KENDALL V ERNEST PESTANA
TRANSFER CASE; REPRESENTS CA (MINORITY) RULE--WHERE A COMMERCIAL LEASE CONTAINS AN APPROVAL PROVISION (LL MUST CONSENT FOR T TO ASSIGN OR SUBLEASE), CONSENT MAY BE WITHHELD ONLY WHERE THE LESSOR HAS A COMMERICALLY REASONABLE OBJECTION TO THE ASSIGNEE OR THE PROPOSED LEASE; TX DOES NOT FOLLOW
WHAT IS THE CA RULE W/ REGARD TO LEASE TRANSFERS? DOES TX FOLLOW IT?
(MINORITY) RULE--WHERE A COMMERCIAL LEASE CONTAINS AN APPROVAL PROVISION (LL MUST CONSENT FOR T TO ASSIGN OR SUBLEASE), CONSENT MAY BE WITHHELD ONLY WHERE THE LESSOR HAS A COMMERICALLY REASONABLE OBJECTION TO THE ASSIGNEE OR THE PROPOSED LEASE; NO
SOMMER V KRIEDEL
TERMINATION CASE; ENGAGED T RENTS APT FOR HE AND HIS FUTURE WIFE, ENGAGEMENT FALLS THRU, HE TELLS LL TO KEEP THE RENT, SEC DEP. LL TAKES "DO NOTHING" OPTION AND DOES NOT RE-LET, EVEN AFTER SHOWING IT TO PEOPLE; STANDS FOR PRINCIPLE THAT LL HAS DUTY TO MITIGATE
SAGAMORE CORP V WILLCUTT
TERMINATION CASE; STANDS FOR PRINCIPLE THAT LL CANNOT SUE FOR ANTICIPATORY BREACH; BUT IN TX, YOU CAN--SEE TX CASE RIFANO
INGLESIDE PROPERTIES V REDFISH BAY
ACCEPTANCE OF SURRENDER CASE (COMMERICAL SETTING); TX CASE; T TERMINATES LEASE (LL DOES NOT ACCEPT); T SAYS LL DID ACCEPT BY LETTING THE DOCKS BE USED; CT SAYS PERIODIC USE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE ACCEPTANCE--LL MUST HAVE INTENT AND ACT INCONSISTENT WITH T'S RIGHT