Spring Break
THREE PEACEFUL WARRIORS WIN AN IMPORTANT COURT RULING FOR TENANTS
Kathleen Harward, Director of Student Legal Services
Issue date: 4/9/07 Section: Opinion
The next part of the magistrate's ruling is also very instructive and based, I believe, on sound reasoning. After the fourth roommate in this case moved out, the remaining three paid full rent for the following month while they were attempting to negotiate with the landlord and deciding whether to go along with the landlord's demands. The magistrate found that during this month, there was a tenancy of some kind, not one governed by the illegal, written lease, but one in which the three remaining tenants paid rent and clearly remained in the house with the landlord's consent. The magistrate found that this tenancy had to be either an "at-will" or a "month-to-month" tenancy. The first, under the law, requires three days written notice to terminate. The second requires ten days written notice before the end of the month. The late written notice given by these students did not satisfy either notice requirement, so they were held responsible for one month's rent. The tenants hadn't given earlier notice because they were hoping the landlord would negotiate with them. They'd put their negotiation efforts in writing, but these did not specifically say the tenants would terminate by the end of the month. From hindsight, it would have been better for the early letters to notify of termination and then go on to invite the landlord to negotiate.
What does this case mean for other tenants and landlords? First, a ruling at trial (as opposed to a ruling on appeal) is a disposition of a particular dispute turning on particular facts. Magistrate Schwartz's ruling on this particular set of facts does not bind any other trial judge when ruling on another set of facts. However, his reasoning is sound and based on long precedent in which courts refuse to give any enforcement aid to parties to an illegal contract. It's safe to say that the other trial judges in this district will take into consideration Magistrate Schwartz's ruling.
That said, I think this case does mean that landlords won't be able to enforce a lease when tenants can prove with clear and convincing evidence that the landlord intended to rent to more than three. It certainly means that any tenant declaring a lease void for violating "Three Unrelated" should play it safe and give the landlord at least ten days written notice before the end of the month. This may not be required if all tenants move out at the same time in response to a City violation notice and there is no length of time where a "legal" tenancy of no more than three exists.
What does this case mean for other tenants and landlords? First, a ruling at trial (as opposed to a ruling on appeal) is a disposition of a particular dispute turning on particular facts. Magistrate Schwartz's ruling on this particular set of facts does not bind any other trial judge when ruling on another set of facts. However, his reasoning is sound and based on long precedent in which courts refuse to give any enforcement aid to parties to an illegal contract. It's safe to say that the other trial judges in this district will take into consideration Magistrate Schwartz's ruling.
That said, I think this case does mean that landlords won't be able to enforce a lease when tenants can prove with clear and convincing evidence that the landlord intended to rent to more than three. It certainly means that any tenant declaring a lease void for violating "Three Unrelated" should play it safe and give the landlord at least ten days written notice before the end of the month. This may not be required if all tenants move out at the same time in response to a City violation notice and there is no length of time where a "legal" tenancy of no more than three exists.
Be the first to comment on this story