Introduction
The following paper is devoted to the study of a landlord-tenant case, specifically the legal relationship between Larry Landlord and Roger Renter. The law governing such relationships concerns the conduct related to property and is composed based on common and state laws (Landlord-Tenant Law, n.d.).
Landlord-tenant relationships are governed by the laws of property, in which both parties have an interest. It also subsumes a set of legal obligations prescribed by statutes and common laws or individual leases. The provisions stated in the latter are regulated by the former two. A lease – or a contract – generally suggests that the tenants pay rent, the sum of which varies depending on the type of tenancy and other factors. Since Roger is described as the “model” renter in the case, and the payment does not appear to be the issue, one can assume the disagreement is to be reviewed based on Larry’s and Roger’s proprietary responsibilities.
The parties’ legal rights and responsibilities
As the tenant and the landlord, Roger and Larry have several responsibilities proscribed by their contract, which, in turn, are reliant on the statute or common laws. Larry the landlord is responsible for delivering the property to the tenant as soon as their contract comes in force. Larry also has a duty not to trespass or intrude in the property that, as per their contract, is Roger’s – as established in Kuist v. Curran case – unless an imminent peril is present (Kuist v. Curran, n.d.). Finally, the landlord is responsible for the habitability of the accommodation they provide; in other words, the landlord is obliged to assure the property does not inflict damage to the tenant’s possessions or health. Under some jurisdictions, the renter is in the right to cancel the lease if the landlord fails to do so.
Roger, as a tenant, is primarily responsible for preserving the property. This obligation means he is to keep the apartment in a habitable state and return it to Larry upon the expiry of their contract in the state he came to inhabit it (Landlord-Tenant Law, n.d.). Logically, Roger must pay the monthly rent of $800.00 as specified by the contract. If the agreement was made for the apartment to be used for commercial purposes, Roger would have to operate the business he had rented the apartment for. Because the tenant does not imply such purposes, Roger must use the apartment for no other purposes but residence (Landlord-Tenant Law, n.d.). It is also stated that a tenant should repair the damage caused by them or by any other persons for whom the tenants are responsible (family, guests, etc.) (California Tenants, 2012).
As to the parties’ rights, the landlord (Larry in this case) has a right to terminate the tenancy in some instances. Having informed the tenant that the contract is to be terminated, the landlord should state the cause of the termination, which might be the renter’s fault. If a renter fails to provide payment by the due date, causes material damage to the property (waste), disturbs other renters, engages in activities prohibited by the contract or other unlawful activities, the tenancy is terminated and the renter is evicted (California Tenants, 2012). The renter, on the other hand, has a right to be constructively evicted when they fail to pay rent, which is to say that the renter leaves the property but the landlord does not remove them forcefully (Casner, Leach, & French, 2004). The tenants are also protected from retaliatory eviction or removal from the property in response to habitability claims. No evictions can be conducted against a discriminatory background, i.e. based on race, gender, and other biases of the landlord as well as the tenants’ health status (Casner et al., 2004).
The parties’ rights and responsibilities are adhered to up to a certain point. As seen from the case, Larry does provide Roger with the property when the contract comes into force. In his turn, Roger is compliant with regular rent payments as per the contract and does not violate his neighbors’ privacy and peace. The disagreement arises when the conditions become inhabitable, and the landlord is not willing to address the problems at hand.
Legal duty to mitigate damages
In every landlord-tenant contract, a warranty of habitability is implied (Lebovits, Howard, & Terk, 2013). This is to say, the landlord must not only provide the renter with the property as the contract is signed but also ensure the property is habitable. Under “habitability,” one should understand the living conditions that do not harm or jeopardize the life, health, and property of the tenant. If the conditions become inhabitable, the landlord should mitigate the damage. If they have not done so within a reasonable period, the renter is in the right to terminate the agreement and move out. For that sake, the renter should apply to the local attorney or an agency that acknowledges the inhabitability of the property (Lebovits et al., 2013).
At the same time, the tenant can conduct repairs on their own but only to a certain extent. The point to which repairs can be made should be proscribed by the contract. Such limitations result from the tenant’s duty to abstain from wasting (California Tenants, 2012).
In this case, it was evident for Larry that the conditions are likely to become inhabitable during the rainy period. Still, such a possibility was never communicated to Roger the tenant. Nor did Larry make any movements towards repairment of the damage promptly. It would be true to say that Roger could have made repairs of his own (unless doing so was prohibited by their contract). The legal duty, however, was Larry’s. It can be interpreted that the landlord is attempting to constructively evict his tenant by deliberately refusing (or procrastinating) the timely repairs. Whether the eviction is legally justified, therefore, is another issue of concern.
Legal grounds to evict Roger
A landlord is in the right to evict a renter without initiating a legal process. In other words, a tenant can be forcefully removed from the property. On the other hand, most states currently prohibit self-conducted eviction. Unless the circumstances subsume an imminent peril, the landlord cannot trespass the property whatsoever, without initially informing the renter (Casner, Leach, & French, 2004). An eviction cannot happen when a renter claims the conditions are inhabitable – that is, present a threat to their life and property (Casner et al., 2004). That would be a retaliatory eviction, which is prohibited. In legal terms, the landlord can only remove a renter if the latter was responsible for a total breach of the terms specified in the contract (Lebovits et al., 2013).
An important point is that the payment of rent used to be considered a covenant independent from whether the property-owning party abode with their duties. In other words, the renter was to pay whether the landlord performed their obligations or not. Today, the payment is a dependent covenant, which means that the renter can cancel the payment if the landlord does not abide by the contract terms (Lebovits et al., 2013).
In this case, Larry cannot evict Roger single-handedly because there is no imminent peril. Because Roger repeatedly claims inhabitability and bids, Larry, to repair the leak, the landlord cannot remove him in retaliation. This means that Larry would have had legal grounds to evict Roger only if the latter broke the terms of the contract. Considering that Larry failed to perform his legal duty and repair the leak promptly, he is the one to violate the contract. Javins v. First National Realty Corp. case established that when the house becomes inhabitable, the tenants are freed from paying their rent (Rabin, 1984). Consequently, even if Roger refused to pay rent, Larry would not have the right to remove him from the property because Larry did not fulfill his duties as the landlord.
At the same time, the tenant must preserve the property, whereas Roger was the one to damage the wall and the electrical socket. This circumstance can serve as a legal ground to evict him due to the breach of the agreement terms. However, because Roger was the one to first report inhabitable conditions, the removal would be considered retaliatory. The final question, therefore, is whether Roger is responsible for the damage he caused (the wall and the socket).
Legal obligation to pay for the damage Roger caused
Legally, upon the expiry of the contract, a renter should return the property in the same condition they came to possess it. The renter, therefore, is responsible for any damage they cause to the property (Landlord-Tenant Law, n.d.). Although at the moment of throwing the bat and causing the damage Roger was upset at Larry, such action is that of willful harm infliction. As a consequence, and despite his distress, he still has to bear responsibility and reimburse for the wall and the electrical socket.
Larry (voluntarily or involuntarily) served as a cause of Roger’s anger and, implicitly, the damage Roger caused. Despite that, he is not liable to repair the wall and the socket; at that, the responsibility is Roger’s. Larry, on the other hand, is liable to repair the leak that shatters the habitability of the accommodation.
Conclusion
To reiterate, the case presents some serious issues with landlord-tenant law adherence. Larry has shown negligence of his duty to mend reimburse for the inhabitable condition of the accommodation. From his side, Roger has to bear full responsibility for the damage he caused. Despite the broken electrical socket and the shattered wall, the landlord – Larry, in this case – does not have the legal right to evict his renter. The mediation suggests that both parties follow their duties as the landlord and the tenant, i.e., repairing the leakage on Larry’s part and reimbursement of the broken socket and wall on Roger’s.
References
California Tenants: A Guide to Residential Tenants’ and Landlords’ Rights and Responsibilities. (2012). Web.
Casner, A. J., Leach, W. B., & French, S. F. (2004). Cases and Text on Property (5th ed.). Kuist v. Curran. (n.d.). Web.
Landlord-Tenant Law. (n.d.). Web.
Lebovits, G., Howard, D. P., & Terk, M. B. (2013). New York Residential Landlord-Tenant Law and Procedure (5th ed.). Albany, NY: New York State Bar Association.
Rabin, E. (1984). Revolution in Residential Landlord-Tenant Law: Causes and Consequences. Cornell Law Review, 69(3), 517-584.