Leaseholds: LL & Tenant
10/1 L leases Whiteacre to T for one year,beginning 10/1.
The following 9/30 T moves out without giving L any notice.
What are L’s rights?
This is a Term of Years, L has no rights as T did nothing wrong
10/1 L leases Whiteacre to T from year to year, beginning 10/1.
The following 9/30 T moves out without giving L any notice.
What are L’s rights?
T has a periodic tenancy from year to year. T would have to give notice to terminate the tenancy; he couldn’t just leave at the end of the first year.
At common law, T would have to give at least six months notice of his intention to terminate on September 30th, and T could only terminate on September 30th, the end of the period.
In many jurisdictions today, T need give only 30 days notice, again to terminate on September 30th. Since in the hypothetical neither T nor L gave notice (the notice rules for termination by L are the same as those applicable to T), T and L would each be bound for another yea
What if the lease was for no fixed term, with annual rent of $24,000 payable $2,000 per month on the first of each month?
Here there is no fixed term, there is a reserved annual rent, and it is to be paid monthly. A periodic tenancy will result in all jurisdictions, but not in a uniform manner.
Many jurisdictions say that if an annual rent is reserved, there is a year-to-year
periodic tenancy, even if rent is paid monthly. T and L, then, would have to give either six months notice if the common law rule were followed, or 30 days if the jurisdiction in question provided for the shorter notice period described in the last hypothetical. In either case, the notice would have to be given in the manner described there.
Some jurisdictions find a month-to-month periodic tenancy if rent is paid monthly.
In this case, either T or L could terminate by giving 30 days notice as described above. Indeed, in a number of jurisdictions T or L could terminate at any time after 30 days notice — notice could be given on May 12th, that is, to terminate the tenancy on June 14th.
T, a month to month tenant, notified L on 11/16/22 that she would vacate as of 11/30/2022. T vacated on that date and paid no further rent. L after reasonable efforts relets the property on 4/1/2023. The jurisdiction has no statute re: method of terminating month to month tenancies.
L sues T for unpaid rent for 12/22-3/23
Since the jurisdiction has no applicable statute, the common law notice rules apply, and the month-to-month tenant must give notice equal to the length of the periods in the periodic tenancy, to terminate at the end of the period. Now it’s possible, of course, that the periodic tenancy in question happens to run from midmonth to month end to mid-month.
Mineral lease for silica mining for a term of years ending in 2007, and continuing “as long thereafter as” the mining or the transportation of silica continued on the land.
In 2015 Landowners sought to have lease construed as tenancy at will, and they were ready to terminate.
Ct. held that this was a determinable tenancy. It could go on in perpetuity, or could end upon the terms (when silica is no longer mined or transported on the land).
T leases from L land for hunting. T pays 1 year of rent in advance. T learns there is no public access to the land, and neighbors refuse T access.
Under the English Rule, is L liable?
Yes, L is in breach.
L and T execute a lease for a specified term. T takes possession and pays rent for several months, then T learns L had earlier leased the premises to another tenant for the same term. T remains in possession but stops paying rent. L sues T for unpaid rent, T counterclaims for rent already paid.
What is the result?
T loses; he has no right to stop paying rent so long as he is in possession, and he is liable for unpaid rent.
Trisha rents a one-bedroom dwelling unit in a large apartment complex, signing a lease for 16 months. While Trisha is away during the day at work, a thief breaks into her unit through the front door and steals her plasma television set. The front door lacks a dead-bolt lock, which Trisha believes made it easier for the thief to gain access. If Trisha brings an action against the landlord for the value of the television, she is more likely to prevail if:
A. The jurisdiction generally treats residential leases like contracts.
B. The jurisdiction generally treats residential leases like conveyances.
C. The jurisdiction follows caveat emptor.
D. The neighborhood where the apartments are located basically is crime free.
E. Trisha’s lease contains a covenant of quiet enjoyment.
A. The jurisdiction generally treats residential leases like contracts.
The contract approach, compared to the conveyance approach, is the more modern and usually is employed to confer greater rights on the tenant. Although the contract approach has nothing directly to do with tort liability for negligence, it would support recovery on the implied covenant theory. So A is the best answe