DOCSLIB.ORG

Infiltration of Secondhand Smoke Into Condominiums, Apartments and Other Multi-Unit Dwellings: 2009 (2009)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Infiltration of Secondhand Smoke Into Condominiums, Apartments and Other Multi-Unit Dwellings: 2009 (2009) A Law Synopsis by the Tobacco Control Legal Consortium October 2009 Infiltration of Secondhand Smoke into Condominiums, 5PCBDDP$POUSPM Apartments and Other Multi-Unit Dwellings: 2009 -FHBM$POTPSUJVN Susan Schoenmarklin Law. Health. Justice. This synopsis is provided for educational purposes only and is not to be construed as a legal opinion or as a substitute for obtaining legal advice from an attorney. Laws cited are current as of September 2009. The Tobacco Control Legal Consortium provides legal information and education about tobacco and health, but does not provide legal representation. Readers with questions about the application of the law to specific facts are encouraged to consult legal counsel familiar with the laws of their jurisdictions. Suggested citation: Susan Schoenmarklin, Tobacco Control Legal Consortium, Infiltration of Secondhand Smoke into Condominiums, Apartments and Other Multi-Unit Dwellings: 2009 (2009). Tobacco Control Legal Consortium 875 Summit Avenue Saint Paul, Minnesota 55105 USA [email protected] www.tobaccolawcenter.org 651.290.7506 Copyright © 2009 Tobacco Control Legal Consortium This publication was made possible by the financial support of the American Cancer Society and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Infiltration of Secondhand Smoke into Condominiums, Apartments and Other Multi-Unit Dwellings: 2009 Susan Schoenmarklin Introduction Key Points The demand for smoke-free apartments and condominiums is soaring, spurred by warnings about secondhand smoke from • Landlords and condo- leading health experts. The 2006 Report of the U.S. Surgeon minium associations General, The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to may prohibit smoking Tobacco Smoke, cautioned that there is “no risk-free level of or refuse to allow exposure to secondhand smoke” and that “even small amounts smoking for new, and of secondhand smoke exposure can be harmful.”1 The report in many cases existing, included a discussion of the infiltration of secondhand smoke occupants. There is no in multi-unit housing and supports the adoption of smoke-free judicially recognized policies.2 The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention “right to smoke” in a considered the risk of heart attacks from exposure to secondhand multi-unit dwelling, whether the dwelling smoke substantial enough to warn those at increased risk for is privately owned or coronary heart disease to avoid all indoor environments that public housing. permit smoking.3 In 2005, the California Air Resources Board classified secondhand smoke as a “toxic air contaminant” similar • Residents of multi- to diesel exhaust and benzene.4 The Environmental Protection unit dwellings have a Agency classifies secondhand smoke as a Group A carcinogen, variety of common law for which there is no safe level of human exposure.5 For every remedies for stopping eight smokers who die from smoking, it is estimated that one secondhand smoke nonsmoker dies.6 infiltration. Despite the documented health risks of secondhand smoke, a • A resident of a multi- unit dwelling who can perception still exists that banning smoking in the individual show that secondhand units of multi-unit housing is illegal. This publication, which smoke exposure limits debunks such a notion, is an update of the Tobacco Control Legal a major life activity Consortium’s 2004 synopsis on the same topic, and includes recent can use the federal Fair information on smoke-free housing laws and policies. Section I Housing Act to seek explains the right of landlords, condominium associations and to end the secondhand public housing authorities to prohibit smoking in individual units. smoke infiltration. Section II provides solutions for private individuals if secondhand smoke is seeping into their dwellings from neighboring units. • Landlords and condo- minium associations Finally, section III discusses enforcement concerns expressed by can prohibit smoking landlords and the advantages of specifically addressing smoking in their leases and in a lease. This section also provides smoke-free language governing documents, to use in a lease or in condominium bylaws. A committee of although they may be attorneys who represent landlords and tenants developed this able to take action even model language for the Center for Energy and Environment and without such language. the Association for Nonsmokers – Minnesota in Minneapolis, Minnesota. 1 Section I – Prohibiting Smoking owned apartment complexes and in fact, does not and Smokers in Private and prohibit a private owner of an apartment complex from refusing to rent to smokers.”12 Public Housing On July 17, 2009, HUD issued recommendations The law is clear that in all fifty states a landlord strongly encouraging public housing authorities may chose to prohibit smoking in individual units to enact smoke-free policies in their public as well as in common areas. The law pertains to housing units.13 A number of other HUD opinions private landlords, public housing authorities, and and cases approve the right of a public housing other affordable housing owners. authority to prohibit smoking in properties 14 According to a 1992 Opinion of Michigan’s subject to HUD authority. A January 31, 2007 Attorney General, “neither state nor federal letter from the Field Office Director of the HUD law prohibits a privately-owned apartment office in Detroit confirms the right of local complex from renting only to non smokers, or housing authorities and private owners of HUD- in the alternative, restricting smokers to certain subsidized housing to adopt smoke-free policies buildings within an apartment complex.”7 In in their buildings. In the letter, the author notes 2008, the Idaho Office of the Attorney General’s that a number of housing authorities and private manual for landlords and tenants stated, “Given landlords have voluntarily adopted smoke-free the health risks and environmental issues policies for their HUD-assisted developments, associated with second-hand smoke, more and and that these policies were adopted as a result of 15 more landlords are excluding smokers from local efforts rather than by regulation or law. renting the landlords’ property. This is not a While administrative authorities and judicial discriminatory practice, and Idaho does not have case law recognize the right to prohibit smoking, 8 any laws protecting a tenant’s ‘right’ to smoke.” only one state expressly creates such a right These opinions are relevant to all states. An by statute. Utah’s state law permits landlords extensive search of federal and state laws and to prohibit smoking within an apartment unit 16 regulations did not identify any laws or cases by incorporating such a clause in the lease. preventing landlords from prohibiting smoking. Similarly, the Utah Condominium Act allows a Under common law, a landlord has a right to condominium association to develop covenants place certain restrictions on tenants, including and restrictions that prohibit smoking on the 17 restrictions on smoking, as long as the landlord site. Whether a condominium association that does not violate constitutional or other laws.9 had previously permitted smoking in individual There is no state or federal constitutional right units could subsequently vote to prohibit to smoke.10 smoking in the entire condominium complex without any special “grandfather” exclusions for On July 23, 2003, the Chief Counsel of a the units of smokers is subject to debate. In 2006, Housing and Urban Development (HUD) field a District Court in Colorado upheld the right of a office in Detroit issued a letter stating that the condominium association to enforce retroactively right to smoke is not protected under the Civil an amendment banning smoking in all units.18 Rights Act of 1964 or any other HUD-enforced The issue of grandfathering is discussed at length civil rights authorities.11 She pointed out that in a law synopsis from the Tobacco Control nothing in federal law, including the federal Fair Legal Consortium titled Legal Options for Housing Act, prevents landlords from making Condominium Owners Exposed to Secondhand some or all of their apartment units smoke-free. Smoke. The author concludes that courts are “Federal law does not prohibit the separation of likely to enforce smoke-free amendments to smoking and non-smoking tenants in privately condominium documents, even against the wishes 2 of owners who purchased units when smoking was music, offensive odors, or other significant permissible.19 annoyances, and would arguably apply to smoking if the resulting secondhand smoke causes others Section II – Remedies for Residents discomfort or health problems. of Multi-Unit Dwellings Adversely If the seepage problem cannot be resolved in Affected by Secondhand Smoke informal discussions with the smoker, the tenant should approach the landlord with the lease language, the physician’s letter, and any medical Landlords and condominium boards not only test results. The tenant should emphasize that the have the right to prohibit smoking, but in fact landlord has the authority to prohibit or restrict may also be liable under a variety of legal theories smoking in an individual unit to protect the well- for failure to prohibit smoking when a tenant or being of another resident.23 The tenant may ask condominium owner is affected by secondhand the landlord to prohibit smoking in the offending smoke. In addition, the plaintiff may also take unit or pay for the cost of measures to reduce action directly against the smoker. The plaintiff the amount of secondhand smoke entering the may choose from a variety of options when non-smoker’s unit,24 or the tenant may seek less pursuing a claim against a landlord, condominium comprehensive measures, such as asking the board, or the offending smoker, including: smoker to refrain from smoking on outside patios • Voluntary compromises or settlements or in common areas. Aggrieved condominium • A disability claim with the Department owners who are unable to resolve their dispute of Housing and Urban Development or with a fellow condominium owner have recourse its state equivalent to their condominium board and condominium • A small claims court case association.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Landlord and Tenant Rights and Remedies After Default (Commercial Lease) (NY)
    Landlord and Tenant Rights and Remedies after Default (Commercial Lease) (NY) Go to: Importance of Lease Terms | Tenant Defaults | Landlord Remedies | Tenant Defenses | Common Landlord Defaults | Tenant Remedies | Bankruptcy Considerations | Voluntary Surrender (Agreement for Early Termination) Current as of: 03/03/2020 This practice note discusses default and remedy provisions that are commonly included in commercial leases in New York focusing on office, retail, and industrial leases. This note also addresses recent changes to the law pursuant to New York's Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act of 2019 (2019 Act), bankruptcy provisions in commercial leases, and early lease termination via use of a voluntary surrender agreement. Specialized leases involving leasehold mortgages and ground leases vary widely and usually include complex, deal-specific provisions, and requirements. This practice note does not address the unique situations these leases present, but instead concentrates on the defaults, remedies, and defenses that often arise in commercial lease disputes, through the lens of New York law. For further guidance on negotiating commercial leases, see Commercial Real Estate Leasing (NY), Office Lease Agreement, Retail Lease Agreements, and Industrial Lease Agreements. For commercial lease forms, see Office Lease Agreement (Short Form) (NY), Office Lease (NY), Retail Lease Agreement (Long Form) (NY), Residential Lease Agreements (NY), and Retail Lease Agreement (Short Form) (Pro-Landlord) (NY). See 4 NY Practice Guide: Real Estate §§ 27.01–27.04 for information on rights and liabilities of landlords and tenants in commercial leases in New York. Importance of Lease Terms In New York, commercial leases are governed by the same rules that apply to contract interpretation generally and by statute, including N.Y.
    [Show full text]
  • Types of Deeds Components of the Deed
    Types of Deeds General Warranty • Warrants title against all defects in title, whether they arose before and after grantor took title. Special Warranty • Warrants title against the grantor’s own acts but not the acts of others. Quitclaim • No warranties. Conveys whatever interest/title that grantor has, which could be nothing. U N I V E R S I T Y of H O U S T O N Professor Marcilynn A. Burke Copyright©2008 Marcilynn A. Burke All rights reserved. Provided for student use only. Components of the Deed • Location of the property • Salutation • Grantor’s name and residence • Consideration, receipt of consideration, and method of payment • Granting grantee the property and grantee residence U N I V E R S I T Y of H O U S T O N Professor Marcilynn A. Burke Copyright©2008 Marcilynn A. Burke All rights reserved. Provided for student use only. 1 Components of the Deed Cont’d • Description of the property • Habendum (to-have-and-to-hold) • Warranty • Any limitation of title or the interest • Execution date and place • Execution • Acknowledgment (notary) U N I V E R S I T Y of H O U S T O N Professor Marcilynn A. Burke Copyright©2008 Marcilynn A. Burke All rights reserved. Provided for student use only. Warranties • Present • Covenant of seisin • Covenant of right to convey • Covenant against encumbrances • Future • Covenant of general warranty • Covenant of quiet enjoyment • Covenant of further assurances U N I V E R S I T Y of H O U S T O N Professor Marcilynn A.
    [Show full text]
  • Constructive Eviction and Implied Warranties in Leasing Stuart R
    University of Baltimore Law Forum Volume 11 Article 9 Number 1 Fall 1981 1981 Caveat Venditor: Constructive Eviction and Implied Warranties in Leasing Stuart R. Blatt Nicholas Nunzio Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/lf Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Blatt, Stuart R. and Nunzio, Nicholas (1981) "Caveat Venditor: Constructive Eviction and Implied Warranties in Leasing," University of Baltimore Law Forum: Vol. 11: No. 1, Article 9. Available at: http://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/lf/vol11/iss1/9 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@University of Baltimore School of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Baltimore Law Forum by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@University of Baltimore School of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. FORUM Solution: Page 40 Hidden Legal Lingo by Jim Oigan Find and Circle the Word brief attach B A L E A Q U I T T E R E surety appeal A T T A C H U I R N Y M U caveat N R I T R I P E M R E D S indemnify libel D E K E 0 T P R 0 C E S S intervene eject E S A U F C E N J E U V I quit claim M T F R 0 L A U T N D T 0 arrest limitations N C M S R A L I B E L L R survivor kin I G E I P I H L E V Y U T cepi process S R L A A F L 0 P K M I R pro forma Y B A W I T C E J E P S E rule levy R 0 V I V R U S R T Q S V assault cause L I M I T A T I O N S A A issue C A U S E R 0 T D I E R G the result that there existed no implied warranty of hab- Caveat Venditor: itability or fitness for use of the leased premises.
    [Show full text]
  • Property and Conveyancing William Schwartz
    Annual Survey of Massachusetts Law Volume 1973 Article 4 1-1-1973 Chapter 1: Property and Conveyancing William Schwartz Follow this and additional works at: http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/asml Part of the Property Law and Real Estate Commons Recommended Citation Schwartz, William (1973) "Chapter 1: Property and Conveyancing," Annual Survey of Massachusetts aL w: Vol. 1973, Article 4. Schwartz: Chapter 1: Property and Conveyancing CHAPTER 1 Property and Conveyancing WILLIAM SCHWARTZ• §1.1. Abolition of the doctrine of worthier title. Sections 33A and 83B of chapter 184 have been added to the General Laws.1 These statutes abolish the doctrine of worthier title. In order to comprehend the impact of these statutes it is necessary to understand both of the common law branches of this rule-testamentary worthier title and inter vivos worthier title. Since these statutes may not affect prior conveyances or devises, such an understanding of the common law branches remains essential. At common law, if land was devised, and a devisee was given an estate of the same quantity and quality as he would have taken if the devise had been stricken out of the will, he was deemed to take the inter­ est by descent and not by devise.2 This is known as the Doctrine of Testamentary Worthier Title. A variety of reasons have been suggested for the rule, including the desire on the part of medieval lords to preserve the valuable incidents of tenure.8 For example: 0 owns Blackacre in fee simple absolute. 0 devises it to A. At O's death, A is O's heir.
    [Show full text]
  • Georgia Landlord-Tenant Handbook |1
    GEORGIA LANDLORD TENANT HANDBOOK A Landlord-Tenant Guide to the State’s Rental Laws Revised February 2021 Georgia Landlord-Tenant Handbook |1 Introduction This Handbook provides an overview and answers common questions about Georgia residential landlord-tenant law. The information in this Handbook does not apply to commercial or business leases. The best solution for each case depends on the facts. Because facts in each case are different, this Handbook covers general terms and answers, and those answers may not apply to your specific problem. While this publication may be helpful to both landlords and tenants, it is not a substitute for professional legal advice. This Handbook has information on Georgia landlord-tenant law as of the last revision date and may not be up to date on the law. Before relying on this Handbook, you should independently research and analyze the relevant law based on your specific problem, location, and facts. In Georgia, there is not a government agency that can intervene in a landlord-tenant dispute or force the landlord or tenant to behave a particular way. Landlords or tenants who cannot resolve a dispute need to use the courts, either directly or through a lawyer, to enforce their legal rights. The Handbook is available on the internet or in print (by request) from the Georgia Department of Community Affairs (www.dca.ga.gov). Table of Contents Relevant Law 3 Entering into a Lease and Other Tenancy Issues 5 1. Submitting a Rental Application 5 2. Reviewing and Signing a Lease 5 3. Problems During a Lease: 10 4.
    [Show full text]
  • The Indigent Tenant and the Doctrine of Constructive Eviction, 1968 Wash
    Washington University Law Review Volume 1968 | Issue 3 January 1968 The ndiI gent Tenant and the Doctrine of Constructive Eviction Follow this and additional works at: http://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview Recommended Citation The Indigent Tenant and the Doctrine of Constructive Eviction, 1968 Wash. U. L. Q. 461 (1968). Available at: http://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/vol1968/iss3/4 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School at Washington University Open Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington University Law Review by an authorized administrator of Washington University Open Scholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE INDIGENT TENANT AND THE DOCTRINE OF CONSTRUCTIVE EVICTION INTRODUCTION In its report, President Johnson's National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders, more popularly know~m as the "Riot Commission," stated: Today, after more than three decades of fragmented and grossly under-funded Federal housing programs, decent housing remains a chronic problem for the disadvantaged urban household. Fifty- six percent of the country's nonwhite families live in central cities today, and of these, nearly two-thirds live in neighborhoods marked by substandard housing and general urban blight. For these citizens, condemned by segregation and poverty to live in the decaying slums of our central cities, the goal of a decent home and suitable environment is as far distant as ever.' The Commission also summarized some of the reasons for the snow- balling phenomenon of the ghetto housing: The reasons many Negroes live in decaying slums are not diffi- Most ghetto resi- cult to discover.
    [Show full text]
  • QUESTION 1 Purchaser Acquired Blackacre from Seller in 1988
    QUESTION 1 Purchaser acquired Blackacre from Seller in 1988. Seller had purchased the property in 1978. Throughout Seller's ownership, Blackacre had been described by a metes and bounds legal description, which Seller believed to include an island within a stream. Seller conveyed title to Blackacre to Purchaser through a special warranty deed describing Blackacre with the same legal description through which Seller acquired it. At all times while Seller owned Blackacre, she thought she owned the island. In 1978, she built a foot bridge to the island to allow her to drive a tractor mower on it. During the summer, she regularly mowed the grass and maintained a picnic table on the island. Upon acquiring Blackacre, Purchaser continued to mow the grass and maintain the picnic table during the summer. In 1994, Neighbor, who owns the property adjacent to Blackacre, had a survey done of his property (the accuracy of which is not disputed) which shows that he owns the island. In 1998, Neighbor demanded that Purchaser remove the picnic table and stop trespassing on the island. QUESTION: Discuss any claims which Purchaser might assert to establish his right to the island or which he may have against Seller. DISCUSSION FOR QUESTION 1 I. Mr. Plaintiffs Claims versus Mr. Neighbor One who maintains continuous, exclusive, open, and adverse possession of real property for the requisite statutory period may obtain title thereto under the principle of adverse possession. Edie v. Coleman, 235 Mo. App. 1289, 141 S.W. 2d 238 (1940), Vade v. Sickler, 118 Colo. 236, 195 P.2d 390 (1948).
    [Show full text]
  • View the Slip Opinion(S)
    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION ONE VOTIV, INC., a Washington ) No. 78289-4-1 corporation, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) ) BAY VISTA OWNER LLC, a Delaware ) limited liability company; BAY VISTA ) BUILDING ASSOCIATION, a nonprofit ) association; BAY VISTA BUILDING, a ) Washington nonprofit corporation; BAY ) VISTA RESIDENTIAL TOWER ) ASSOCIATION, a Washington ) corporation, THE CWD GROUP, ) INCORPORATED, a Washington ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION corporation; and TATLEY-GRUND, ) INC., a Washington corporation, ) FILED: September 16, 2019 ) Respondents. ) ) VERELLEN, J. —A commercial landlord must fulfill its contractual duties of repair and maintenance in a reasonable manner. When a landlord fulfills its duties unreasonably and interferes with its tenant's use and enjoyment of its leasehold, then it can be liable for the tort of nuisance. If that unreasonable conduct also substantially deprives the tenant of the peaceable use and enjoyment of its leasehold, the landlord can be liable for breaching the covenant of quiet enjoyment as well. Votiv, Inc.'s, lease does not prevent it from suing landlord Bay Vista No. 78289-4-1/2 Owner LLC (BV0)for nuisance or breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment. Votiv presented sufficient evidence to defeat summary judgment on its nuisance and covenant of quiet enjoyment claims against BV0. But Votiv's claim of constructive eviction does not survive summary judgment because Votiv never abandoned its leasehold. Neither party is entitled to contractual attorney fees under the lease because, at this stage of the proceedings, neither is a "successful party," as required in the lease. And no other party can seek fees under the lease because the lease limits fee requests to the landlord and tenant.
    [Show full text]
  • Landlord and Tenant Law - the Mpliedi Warranty of Habitability in Residential Leases Barbara Maier
    Marquette Law Review Volume 58 Article 14 Issue 1 1975 (Number 1) Landlord and Tenant Law - The mpliedI Warranty of Habitability in Residential Leases Barbara Maier Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/mulr Part of the Law Commons Repository Citation Barbara Maier, Landlord and Tenant Law - The Implied Warranty of Habitability in Residential Leases, 58 Marq. L. Rev. 191 (1975). Available at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/mulr/vol58/iss1/14 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Marquette Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Marquette Law Review by an authorized administrator of Marquette Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 19741 RECENT DECISIONS obtained while the juvenile was under the jurisdiction of the juve- nile court to be later used in a criminal trial. For the above mentioned reasons, the Arizona approach in Maloney is to be preferred over that of the Minnesota court in Loyd. When this question presents itself in other jurisdictions, Maloney is the precedent which should be followed.27 GREGORY M. WEYANDT Landlord and Tenant Law-The Implied Warranty of Habitability in Residential Leases-The recent case of Green v. Sumskil arose when landlord Jack Sumski, seeking possession of leased premises and back rent, commenced an unlawful detainer action in the San Francisco Small Claims Court. The tenant admitted nonpayment of rent and defended the action on the ground that the landlord failed to maintain the premises in a habitable condition. The small claims court awarded the landlord possession of the premises and entered a money judgment for back rent against the tenant.
    [Show full text]
  • Tenants' Rights in Minnesota
    TENANTS' RIGHTS IN MINNESOTA Fourteenth Edition Revised 2017 This booklet helps people renting a place to live understand their legal rights. It is a guide and is not meant to answer all questions. The laws talked about in this booklet change often. So be sure to check for changes. This booklet gives general rules. They may or may not apply to your situation. If you are low-income you can get a free copy of this booklet from your local Legal Services office. You can also find it online at www.LawHelpMN.org to view or print out. Others can purchase the booklet for $7.48 (which includes applicable sales tax, postage, and handling). Booklets are available for purchase from Legal Services State Support Midtown Commons, Suite 101B 2324 University Ave. W. St. Paul, MN 55114 Discounts are available on bulk orders by calling the Legal Services State Support office at 651- 228-9105, ext. 6911. For free information about this and other civil legal topics, visit www.LawHelpMN.org. You can also find fact sheets on different legal subjects online at the website listed above or from the Education for Justice Program of the Minnesota Legal Services Coalition. Please call (651) 842-6915 for a list. © 2017 Minnesota Legal Services Coalition. This document may be reproduced and used for non-commercial personal and educational purposes only. All other rights reserved. This notice must remain on all copies. Reproduction, distribution, and use for commercial purposes is strictly prohibited. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page BEFORE RENTING AN APARTMENT .............................................................................................................................. 1 Check For Code Violations .......................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Law Between Landlord and Tenant in Washington: Part I
    Washington Law Review Volume 49 Number 2 Symposium: Recent Washington Legislation 2-1-1974 The Law Between Landlord and Tenant in Washington: Part I William B. Stoebuck University of Washington School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/wlr Part of the Housing Law Commons Recommended Citation William B. Stoebuck, The Law Between Landlord and Tenant in Washington: Part I, 49 Wash. L. Rev. 291 (1974). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/wlr/vol49/iss2/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Reviews and Journals at UW Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington Law Review by an authorized editor of UW Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE LAW BETWEEN LANDLORD AND TENANT IN WASHINGTON: PART I William B. Stoebuck* * Professor of Law, University of Washington; B.A., Wichita State University, 1951; M.A., Indiana University, 1953; J.D., University of Washington, 1959; SJ.D., Harvard University, 1973. The research for this article, as well as many of the com- ments in it, are the joint work of the author and Messrs. Joel D. Cunningham and Dennis E. Olson, both third-year students in the School of Law, University of Wash- ington. This article is Part I of a two-part series; Part II is scheduled to be published in Vol. 49, Book 4, of the Washington Law Review. 291 Washington Law Review Vol. 49: 291, 1974 OUTLINE PROLOGUE ............................... 294 I. HISTORY AND NATURE OF LEASEHOLDS .....
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 9 LANDLORD and TENANT LAW Table of Sections Soc
    Selected Readings 12 a. LANDLOIIDANDTI!NAN1' A. N.\TURE OrJ.ll!A.WtOIJI A It!Isc:hoId ;. .. _ ill lII:l4 TIle _llu *~ jlOQ! .. "Y iooltesI in die ~ i'R'­ lllises. aIIII dill IondIanI b.,. 4 fUture ~ (~. Ccttain tiaJIIIi lIA4li11lti1itios flow (Mill 1M ~y rtla!icmblp btt_ b:ndklnl1III<I _ The Ihn:o IIII\iO< 1)'pC> of l--""ld _eo are-w'}tw,....~"" •• da.oad"'......... &lIriU.n-: .. ar-dl~ .... 1e4 __1tI~. a. Fbd ...... "'n- A !ella:)' for )'UI'$ ;. "'"' tIM .. '" ....1IiIM roc. fW:o.I poriW of lin... n ...y bo ri.x _ ....than .,...,(•. , .• Uld"l"' .... 10 yeotS); »1IIIIY be ""nahle lsimilarto • fee .....1<0 ....~, nt 041 ~ ~ 'I'M leI'mlIoaIion date of a len&ro:y 1« )'em is IISU8lJy cctltill. Ali • """II. lIIc ICNIIICy npim 1lI die end of die ~ period ....., tiIiB,.".,,m., IIIIIfcI ,. 1M ..... 1:Nai If dill dale 0{ terJnI.. IlIIiooI is ID1CCIIIia (e.R .• L Joascs IIIc premises to T "uaIillllc cad 0{ /be ...,")._ - hold _ iidllll'lidico hovelll<mJlltd w __ """'" pGriod of <kII:IoOOD. liNt..... c'lU1t$ a I~ fer ycm. II. CraoIiom 'IirraQcia, for yea'llille DIlrIJlOIy ~ by om-.Ieues. Tn mea 5l.1li.., Illa S!aIJJIv 0( l-ilIurk ~ duK ! lea!IC <!realms a Il:ruJIlCy r.... mun! than _ 'jeJIE be ill wrilinfl. fa REAL PROPERTY 35. addition. most states have starutes that restrict the number of years {or wh:cb a lease~ holdestale may be creared (e.g .. 51 years for farm property and 99 years for urban property). When the lease term exceeds the statutory maximum.
    [Show full text]