Landlord-Tenant Law

Eviction, while it hurts the family the most, also takes a toll on the communities in the form of ingroups and outgroups. In his book, Evicted, Matthew Desmond says, “Eviction even affects the communities that displaced families leave behind. Neighbors who cooperate with and trust one another can make their streets safer and more prosperous”(p. 298). To make those streets safer and to develop trust and a sense of security, in-groups are created by those in the neighborhood who talk to each other often and form a friendly relationship. Eviction can break that relationship and sometimes result in the removal of the security and trust in the ingroups. It also creates worry about what the next renter will be like. When that renter moves in they

Because rent control sometimes ends or the rent can be raised when a tenant is evicted, landlords may abuse the right to evict tenants. Most cities that have rent control laws limit the reasons for an eviction. A landlord can’t give the tenant a 30-day or 60-day notice that the tenant must leave. The landlord must have a good reason for the eviction such as nonpayment of rent, breach of the rental agreement like pets that aren’t allowed, or illegal activity.

The American dream, the right to own land, build a home, and start a family. Unfortunately this was not always the case as Blacks, Hispanics, and other minorities were discriminated from the early 60’s to the late 80’s and even still today. Segregation plagued the U.S., placing minorities in lower classes than whites, restricting certain rights and freedoms that our constitution laid by our forefathers has been implemented to protect U.S. citizens.

R/s the contractors stated that they can’t work in the home because there is too much crap in the home. R/s contractors said that there is clothes, food, pot and pans everywhere. R/s there is so much stuff throughout the kitchen you can’t see the counter. R/s he filed for eviction of the family and the court date is September 6th.

expiry of the lease, with no other possibility of shelter in view. Prisoners or people living in other

Case Study #2 Luke violates the Residential Tenancies Act by entering the apartment. It was not an emergency, he did not receive permission to enter the apartment from the tenant, and he did not give notice to the tenant that he would be entering the residence. Luke did not give Doug the required notice of fourteen days to Doug when he must be out of the apartment. Doug is in violation of the Residential Tenancies Act because he did not comply with the agreements stated in the contract that he signed. Doug did not pay the full rent for the months of November and December and did not pay it on the first of the month, as was agreed.

Although Plaintiff claims Ms. Miner provided bad references to prospective landlords, Ms. Miner has done nothing of the sort. In fact, policy mandates providing copies of incidental reports, repair notices and notices of delinquency (unpaid rent) by the tenant; Ms. Miner was simply acting in compliance. Accordingly, Ms. Miner did not discriminate against the Plaintiff in denying her leasing application, but merely

Specify reason/s of the breach of the lease agreement and evacuation in section 2, Notice. Provide a detailed description and you can enclose documentary evidence in support of the reasons furnished here.

(4th Amend. Compl. ¶¶ 17-19.) Further, according to Plaintiffs, the property’s water supply came from a well, which was not safe for drinking. (4th Amend. Compl. ¶¶ 20-22.) Also that month, Nenn allegedly informed Defendants that a “large hole on the side of the house near the bathroom . . . remained open and in disrepair,” which left the “insulation totally exposed to the elements,” certain windows were missing trim and weather sealing, and that “another large hole existed near Nenn’s bedroom that allowed the exterior elements to penetrate” the property. (4th Amend. Compl. ¶¶ 23-28.) Plaintiffs allege that Defendants failed to make the repairs within sixty days. (4th Amend. Compl. ¶¶ 26, 28,

Citing common law which states a landlord is not liable to a tenant for physical harm caused by a hazardous condition after the tenant took possession. This was

When you own your home, you have the luxury of not answering to a landlord, and the ability of decorating the inside and surrounding property as pleasing to you. But as a renter you have the flexibility to move when desired instead of staying stationary in a purchased home.

My thought on the situation is that Steve has a right to call Billy out on his faults. He can complain that Billy has failed the statute or ordinance, which can prohibit the leasing of a structure that's not in compliance with local building codes. The building clearly is not safe for Steve to live in and should be fixed immediately because of such hazardous dwellings. He has the right to hold Billy responsible for his failing to fix the heater as well as his leg injury, because yet again Billy's property is not safe. Billy was made aware of the faulty stairs and the heater. The implied warranty of habitability requires a landlord who leases residential property to ensure that the premises are habitable-that is, in a condition that is safe and suitable for people to live in-at the beginning of a lease term and to maintain the premises in that condition for the lease's duration, which Billy has once again failed to do with the heater and the stairs. Steve has two options; he can surrender

Sharing Apartment This case is about three women's, Tameka, Tracy, and Juanita who share an apartment that had a regular kitchen and living room, and every one of them has her own bedroom (Strike and Moss 94). The three of them are like each other, but unfortunately there had different sexual life that force them to separate. Tameka is practically married from her boyfriend, Glenn, and he stays overnight a lot in the apartment. Tracy from time to time has short affairs with any men she brings home, and she never seeing the same person for more than one or couple nights.

The first point to note when analysing occupiers’ liability is that originally it was separate to the general principles of negligence which were outlined in Donoghue v Stevenson .The reason for this “pigeon hole approach” was that the key decision of occupiers’ liability, Indermaur v Dames was decided sixty six years prior to the landmark decision of Donoghue v Stevenson . McMahon and Binchy state the reason why it was not engulfed into general negligence, was because it “… had become too firmly entrenched by 1932 … to be swamped by another judicial cross-current” Following on from Indermaur v Dames the courts developed four distinct categories of entrant which I will now examine in turn.

On appeal to the court of appeal the majority of the judges found on careful examination of case law and from the facts of the case the defendant cannot be held obligated to repair and maintain common parts by an implication from the court where such term was not expressly imputed into the tenancy agreement as it is not necessary to do this to give business efficacy to the contract and would be too burdensome to the landlord to do so. The landlord was also found not in breach of section 32(1) of the housing act.