Landlord-tenant law incorporates statutory and common laws that govern the relationship between tentants and landlords of both residential and commercial property. The legal tenancy relationship is also based on property and contract law. It is highly essential that tenants and landlords understand these laws. While the interest of a landlord is to safeguard his or her investment income and maintain a profitable business, tenants need to understand their rights to comfortable living, safety, protection of property, return of security deposits, and other issues such as subletting (Wilkie & Cole, 2006). Essentially, the length of tenancy can either be definite or for an indefinite period of time, which can be terminanted at any time at will. The landlord-tenant relationship is based on an agreement that is represented by a lease, which is signed after agreeing on the terms contained thereof.
In the case of Larry and Roger, certain legal rights and responsibilities as obligations to each party should have applied. For Larry as the landlord, he had the legal right to receive payments of timely and full rent from the tenant of the property at hand as well as payment of other things including damages other than the normal inevitable damages that may occur due to aging. Therefore, could have demanded payment or deduct charges from security deposit for any damages (drywall and electrical socket) caused by the tenant. In addition, the landlord had the right to evict the tenant if the tenant caused significant damages on the property. In general, the landlord had the legal right to protection of his investment. Nevertheless, the landlord had the legal responsibility to make the rental unit habitable (fit to live in) for the tenant to be safe and his property safeguarded from damage. Therefore, the landlord had a legal responsibility of repairing the leaking roof as soon as he was notified by the tenant since the condition had serious effects on habitability of the house.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
On the other hand, Roger as a tenant had the legal right to a habitable house. This implies that he had the right to demand for repairs on the roof. According to the housing codes that govern the tenancy relationship, all residential units offered for rent must at least meet the basic health and safety standards, struture, and in good condition, that is in good repair for them to be deemed habitble both at the time the tenant is entering the unit and during the time of tenancy (Wilkie & Cole, 2006). The tenant may have the right to withhold rent or even call the relevant authorities to inspect the building. In the case of Roger, he had the right to withhold rent until Larry heeded to the request to repair the leaking roof. As seen in the case, Roger noticed the first minor leak and never reported the issue to the landlord. Instead, he tried to manage the magnitude of leak by himself. In a similar manner, Roger had the right to repair (pay for the necessary equipement) and or recover the damages caused to clothes and furniture, and later deduct the cost involved from the rent when the time for payment was due. In addition, Roger had the right to sue the landlord after raising the issue of the leaking roof went unheeded. Moreover, considering the fact that the landlord could have retaliated if Roger deducted the costs of repair, Roger had the legal right to be protected from such retaliation (for example through eviction). At the same time, the tenant had the right to move out without giving notice to the landlord.
Tenants also have a duty and legal responsibility when it comes to handling matters of tenancy. Tenants have a duty to pay rent, maintain cleanliness in and around the premises, dispose garbage in an orderly manner, and make proper use of all plumbing and electrical fittings within the rented house (Bogart & Makdisi, 2009). In the case of Roger and Larry, the tenant had a legal responsibility to not deliberately or wantonly cause damage, disfigurement, destruction, or removal of any part of the rented structure (dwelling unit). After the disagreement with the landlord, Roger wantonly damaged the wall and an electric socket with a base ball bat out of anger, which implies that he did not fulfill the legal responsibility of keeping the rental unit off damages.
In regard to mitigating the damages, both the tenant and the landlord had a legal duty. According to Bogart & Makdisi (2009), a landlord is generally required by the law to offer habitable units for rent when initially giving out a property to a tenant and to keep the unit in that condition throughout the tenancy period (whether fixed or indefinite). This is the reason why Larry renovated his appartment in order to put it on the market for rent. In the same manner, he should have adressed the requests of the tenant to repair the leaking roof. Irving, Michon & McKenna (2002) point out that, state laws concerning a livable house outline minimum standards that include making sure the unit is waterproof and has roofings and walls that can stand any weather. The tenant also had a legal duty to mitigate the damages. In the first place, the tenant did not cause the defects on the roof, which means it was the legal duty of the landlord to repair. The tenant was supposed to notify the landlord about the leaking roof immediately in writing and retain a copy of the letter to show the date of notice. As seen earlier, after the landlord did not make the repairs as requested, the tenant should either have withheld rent, abadon the premises, file lawsuit, or repair (or hire a technician to repair) the leaking roof and deduct the cost from rent provided that the cost of the repairs would not have exceeded one month’s rent. Therefore, since the case highlights that Roger gave the landlord some reasonable amount of time to carry out the repairs, the legal duty would have to notify the landlord in writing of the intention to take the actions stated above .
From the case study Larry is not obligated to evict Roger from the house. This is because Roger used to pay rent in a timely manner, and the tenancy was supposed to be long-term (meaning the lease period had not expired nor had Roger refused to move out). However, Larry could have claimed that Roger violated one of the terms of lease especially in relation to the duties and responsibilities of a tenant, which in that case was true, but such could not have been sufficient legal ground for eviction. Larry had also ignored constant requests to repair the leaking roof, and in part that was disrespecting the rights of the tenant as well as failing in his duties and responsibilities as the landlord. In addition, the damages caused by the tenant out of anger were minor and replaceable. Those damages were not significant to warrant eviction. Therefore, the landlord could only have given the tenant a three day notice to repair the damaged parts (that is taking respsonsibility to correct the violation), but not leave the premises. Nevertheless, the actions of the tenant to cause damage in the rental unit were not warranted since there were legal alternatives of handling the inability of the landlord to fix the leaking roof. Given that both the landlord and the tenant had failed to meet their legal duties and responsibilities as well as adhere to the lease contract, the only remedy of the situation would have been negotiation and if possible with the help of a third party.
Roger has an obligation to pay for the damages. There is no sufficient justification to the action of damaging property out of anger while claiming the damage was a direct result of the landlord’s neglect. Essentially, Roger did not make use of the legal provisions of handling a case of landlord’s c ignores the requests to repair a condition that made the house uninhabitable. While knowing very well that the rains would continue, Roger instead moved his valuables from the leak and did not do something significant to minimize the damage from the leak. Therefore, his reaction towards the rude response and inability of the landlord to repair the roof caused wanton damage of the rental property, of which he should bear the cost of repairing as charged by the landlord. On the part of the landlord, Larry would hold liability for the direct damages caused on Roger’s furniture, clothes and other valuables. The landlord could have evaded liability only for tenant’s failure to report. However, Larry had received constant calls to repair the leaking roof, but did act upon them until the considerable damage was done. Therefore, he is liable for the damages caused on the tenant’s belongings. In addition, an additional liability can be possible if the tenant claims compensation for not being able to use the rented house normally due to leaking roof especially during the rainy season.
References
Bogart, D. & Makdisi, J,. (2009) Inside property law New York: Aspen Publishers/Wolters Kluwer Law & Business.
Irving, S., Michon, K., & McKenna, B,. (2002). Nolo's encyclopedia of everyday law Berkeley, CA: Nolo.
Wilkie, M. & Cole, G,. (2006). Landlord and tenant law Basingstoke: Macmillan.
