Month-To-Month Lease Case Study

If I were the judge hearing this case, I would rule favor of the property owner Sherman Williams. First, Boyd should have disclosed that he was an active army employee. When filling out renting applications a person is expected to tell the truth on their rental application. Boyd completely omitted the fact that he was in active duty, and could be called away overseas at any time. Due to this fact, Boyd should have never signed a three-year lease agreement, the owner only agreed to renovate the apartment upon Boyd signing the three-year lease. Therefore, the property owner relied on rent for three years in order to pay the renovations off. Furthermore, Boyd left after one month, after allowing the property owner to perform five thousand dollars’ …show more content…
Boyd signed a three year least was reasonable for the property owner to rely on his tenancy to pay off the repairs. In conclusion, Boyd should have signed a month-to-month lease not a tenancy for years for a fixed period. The Servicemembers Civil Relief Act allows service members to break the lease under certain conditions. The Servicemembers Civil Relief Act provides that the tenant must have occupied the premises, under a lease entered into prior to the call to active duty. In addition, the tenant must give notice of termination of the lease and provide the property owner with proof of the call up to active duty. Given these facts, I feel Boyd had an obligation to divulge such important information. Since, Boyd never disclosed he was an active member in the army, the owner does not know if he is an active member or not, Boyd never discussed this with his property owner. The Servicemembers civil act relief has been put in place, to help the soldiers so these lawsuit situations do not occur, had Boyd done his due diligence in disclosing his information, he could have gone about this termination of the lease legally with respect to The Servicemebers Civil Relief Act of