leasehold estates.
periodic tenancy.
tenancy at will.
tenancy in sufferance.
check out how we do in NYC.
garner v. gerrish
there are many complexities that can arise from leases being both property and contracts. the bodies of law are different. contract is almost exclusively about intent of the parties (benefits of hte bargain). property has other interests -- stability, efficiency, reliability, etc. those interests can be in conflict, and must be reconciled.
one party wants a tenancy at will.
the payment of rent is the only thing that has some understanding of the duration of the lease.
the court looks at the terms of the lease to know beyond "a period of years" what the tenancy period should be.
the parties didn't intend to create a tenancy at will.
the question could be so what: if you are purporting to put limits on property that the law doesn't recognize, too bad -- if it's not compatible with our system of property rights, the court will not allow it.
why do we treat a lease differently than a will, or than estate? because it is a contract (covenant to pay rent) with terms in addition to a conveyance
common law of property (where there is one option for one party to terminate at will, the other party will be assumed to also terminate at will)
default rules for contract interpretation (certain terms will be implied, such as duty of good faith and warranty of merchantability... however, some of these rules can be contracted around)
there is an "untrumpable" common law rule here, so why is it not being read into the contract, even if not the intentions of the parties?
what reason to keep that common law relationship? landlord-tenant power disproportionality
life tenancy is usually a free-hold interest. but here the life tenants have to pay rent to enjoy the possession interests.
the landlord's interest in a lease property is a reversion.
only leasehold interests create landlord tenant relationships. freehold interests do not.
crechale & polles v. smith:
see NY RPL 232-c
If a T whose term is longer that one month holds over, LL
does not have automatic right to hold T for a new term. If
LL accepts rent, absent contrary express or implied
agreement, T is deemed a month-to-month tenant.the parties begin with a tenancy term of years/year to year. the tenants are expected to move to another property, but the property won't be ready until after the current lease is up. they are willing to pay for this extension. but there is a disagreement of the material fact of whether or not there was an agreement to the extended month to month. but the first month, when the payment is received, the landlord cashes the check!the landlord is sckitzo and takes four positions:
(1) find somewhere else
(2) i won't take your rent and you're a hold over
(3) ok, you've renewed your lease for the next five years
(4) now you've renewed your lease for the following year
(5) now you're a periodic year to year tenant
what are the rights of a landlord when a tenant holds over?
3 Thompson on Real Property s 1024, at 65-66 (1959), wherein it is said:
‘As a general rule, a tenancy from year to year is created by the tenant's holding over after the expiration of a term for years and the continued payment of the yearly rent reserved. * * * By remaining in possession of leased premises after the expiration of his lease, a tenant gives the landlord the option of treating him as a trespasser or as a tenant for another year, . . .’
by accepting the first check, the landlord agreed to the month-to-month tenancy. the landlord didn't have to accept. when he first found out that the tenant intended to stay, the landlord had the option to either treat the tenant as a trespasser or as a month-to-month tenant. the landlord decided to treat them as a trespasser. he cannot change that position later. the tenants stayed knowing that the landlord would treat them as a trespasser.
why month-to-month? because the landlord cashed the check that was for one month. thereby, we can infer from the facts some semblance of a tenancy period.
not a tenancy at will.
not a term of years: since we must consider the assent and intentions of the party, statute of frauds, and the agreement of the parties. nothing about the facts, circumstances, and reactions give no date certain of when the tenancy would end.
landlord is informed
landlord exercises right to treat tenant as a trespasser.
tenancy at sufferance - wrongful possession, which entitles the landlord to double rent.
BUT -- knowing that these were his rights, the landlord accepts the rent for one month from the tenant.
thereby, the landlord has created a month-to-month tenancy, against the rights he would have had against a tenancy in sufferance
what other rights could the landlord have exercised? see thompson
did the landlord exercise these rights? NO - he accepted the tenants position, by cashing the check
hannan v. dusch
see NY RPL 223-a
what is a landlord obligated to deliver? the right or the actual possession of property?
in england, you must actually deliver the property.
in US, the tenant does not have any claim against landlord for giving the right but not the property. why would
who is in the best position of knowledge to avoid any problems with the holdover?
american rule... english rule... neither is mandatory, and they can be chosen to the terms of the agreement of the contract
ernst v. conditt
there are a couple of issues at play, the issue of privity and the issue of assignment
privity of estate and privity of contract
sublease v. assignment
language said sublease, but for all intents and purposes, this is an assignment... is this really a different test than the traditional one (whether in the title transfer the landlord has retained any interest)?
No comments:
Post a Comment