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;
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
|
