Leaseholds

Commercial lease disclaimer of liability for negligence held to be enforceable

A California appeals court has found a disclaimer of liability for negligence in a commercial lease to be enforceable and not to violate public policy even though a state statute made them invalid as to cases involving fraud, willful injuries, gross negligence, or violations of law. Garcia v. D/AQ Corp., 271 Cal. Rptr. 3d 861 (Ct. App. 2020). This case did not fit in those categories since the tenant hit his head on a low beam at the top of a flight of stairs and the landlord had not engaged in an intentional tort or willfully caused the injury. Since none of the statutory categories applied, and this involved a commercial lease, the court held that the parties had the freedom to agree to the disclaimer of tort liabilty and that this did not violate public policy under either the statute or the common law.

Tenant not entitled to damages under the implied warranty of habitability for injuries from slipping on an icy driveway

The Supreme Judicial Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts held, in Goreham v. Martins, 147 N.E.3d 478 (Mass. 2020), that a landlord is not liable for injuries to a tenant who slips on ice in the driveway under the implied warranty of habitability because such claims are, in effect, strict liability claims and injuries to the body in the context of landlord-tenant law are governed by the law of negligence. In this case, because the jury found the tenant to be more at fault than the landlord, there could be no recovery for negligence either under state law. The court also held that the warranty of habitability only applies to conditions inside the dwelling unit, that the landlord did not violate any provisions in the housing code, and that the tenant could have used the front entrance (rather than the rear entrance where the accident happened) and avoided injury.

Two court reject impossibility defense to tenant rent obligations under government shutdown orders while one abates rent under the wording of the force majeure clause

When Governor Cuomo ordered most businesses to stop serving the public during the COVID-19 pandemic, some could not generate the income needed to pay rent. Some have argued that the impossibility of earning profits to pay rents should constitute a defense to the contractual obligation to pay rent. Two courts in New York have now rejected that argument, including the federal Southern District and a state supreme court. In Backal Hospitality Group LLC v. 627 West 42nd Retail LLC (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2020), the court noted that a lease term provided that if “the fixed rent [shall] become uncollectable by virtue of any law, governmental order or regulation, or direction of any public officer or body, Tenant shall enter into such agreement … as Landlord may request,…to permit Landlord to collect [rent].” Because this clause provided for negotiated settlement if a government order made rent “uncollectable,” the parties had bargained for a …

Two court reject impossibility defense to tenant rent obligations under government shutdown orders while one abates rent under the wording of the force majeure clause Read More »

Tenants have the right to receive guests

Affirming a traditional rule of law, the D.C. Court of Appeals held that tenants have the right to receive guests even over the objections of the landlord. Odumn v. United States, 227 A.3d 1099 (D.C. 2020). Defendant was charged with criminal trespass for violating a no-trespass order by the landlord but because he was on the property at the invitation of his aunt, who was a tenant there, he was not committing a trespass since consent is a defense to trespass and the tenant had the right, as a tenant, to invite him to her apartment.

Commercial tenant right to lost profits and specific performance when landlord breaches lease obligation to make structural repairs

When a landlord breached a commercial lease obligation to make structural repairs to the property, the tenant was entitled to lost profits in addition to specific performance. Motsis v. Ming’s Supermarket, Inc., 2019 WL 5704322 (Mass. App. Ct. 2019). The tenant had been constructively evicted when a sprinkler pipe froze and burst, leading to an inspection by the city that found numerous unsafe structural conditions that led the tenant (a grocery store) to move out of the premises). The trial court properly ruled that the tenant was not limited to a right to terminate the lease and recover relocation costs. The Massachusetts Appeals Court rejected the argument that specific performance is limited to promises to convey title to land, holding that it is available and proper in lease arrangements as well. In addition, the landlord’s “disregard of known contractual relationships…constitutes an unfair act or practice” under the state consumer protection statute.

Rules governing court-ordered rental payments while eviction litigation is pending

When a landlord sued to evict a tenant for failure to pay rent, the court ordered to make rental payments (for “use and occupancy”) during trial. The Massachusetts Appeals Court held that before ordering such payments, the trial judge must hold a hearing to determine whether the payments should be reduced because of defective conditions in the property. Davis v. Comerford, 133 N.E.3d 373 (Mass. App. Ct. 2019). And while such payments are normally paid to the court and held in escrow, they may be delivered directly to the landlord if needed to make mortgage payments on the property. The court interpreted a state statute making tenants at sufferance liable for “use and occupancy” but noted that case law did not measure the value of use and occupancy by the agreed-upon rent but upon the “sum which the trier of fact finds the use and occupation were reasonably worth,” 133 N.E.3d at …

Rules governing court-ordered rental payments while eviction litigation is pending Read More »

Texas statute terminates tenancy on death of tenant

Texas law now provides that a lease terminates when a tenant dies, if the tenant’s estate gives notice to the landlord of the death and removes the deceased tenant’s belongings within 30 days. 2019 Tex. H.B. 69, codified at Tex. Prop. Code §92.0162.

Scroll to Top