I saw some contradictions between the Barbri book and the PMBR questions. Is there anyone who can clarify whether a tenant has the duty to repair the premise if it is destroyed by the force of nature if the tenant COVENANTS TO REPAIR?
If the lease contract says that the tenant should be responsible for repair, should the tenant be responsible for normal wear and tear?
If there is NO repair clause in the lease contract, should the tenant be responsible for normal wear and tear?

 

Tenant will never be responsible for normal wear an tear... and in case of natural dissaster, the tenant can (or actually) should repair it, and the costs should be trasnfered to the landowner....

(Im not 100% sure of this, but seems the natural response)

Remember a tenant is liable only if she commits waste. There must be some affirmative act. Normal wear and tear is not intentional, negligent, or affirmative. Neither Is an act of God such as a destructive storm. The covenant to repair you describe puts more duty including acts if negligence specified in the contract lease however since an act of god nor normal wear and tear is negligent, the tenant is not required to repair, but simply will need to terminate the lease. The lease cannot have exculpatory clauses which make the tenant liable regardless, that is void against public policy

hope this helps!

Now, I'm confused. I have it in my outline that a tenant has an affirmative duty to make ordinary repairs, and in some cases, a failure to do so can result in permissive waste for which the tenant will be liable. This is word for word from PMBR. The example given is a small leak in the roof that tenant has knowledge of, and which goes unrepaired and then worsens as a result. The leaking water subsequently ruins the hardwood flooring. Tenant is then liable. So, which is it?

Posted By Misska on 02 Jul 2009 05:08 PM
Now, I'm confused. I have it in my outline that a tenant has an affirmative duty to make ordinary repairs, and in some cases, a failure to do so can result in permissive waste for which the tenant will be liable. This is word for word from PMBR. The example given is a small leak in the roof that tenant has knowledge of, and which goes unrepaired and then worsens as a result. The leaking water subsequently ruins the hardwood flooring. Tenant is then liable. So, which is it?

You are mixing them...Public Policy will never waiver the landowners resp towards repairs due to normal wear and tear and natural.. (as well as any other in which tenant had no action whatsoever) What your guideline states is that he SHOULD inform about the leak and repair it (passing the costs to LA) if not.. he incurres in a negligence... and then he is liable.

Also, that wont be an ordinary repair... a Leak is a major repair actually (even if it is just fixing an unscrewed pipe..) ordinary repairs would be.. fixing a door, window, etc. Is this helping?

It makes sense to me. I'm just quoting PMBR. But let's say, for the sake of argument, that it's some other problem, not the roof example -- something simple that would be considered an "ordinary" repair -- if the lease is silent, does the tenant have a duty, or not? PMBR says yes. But, apparently, there are conflicting bar prep materials.

Tenant ALWAYS has the duty to KEEP in good shape (but its normal wear and tear...) so.. yes.. he has to fix it.. but if it cannot bring any permanent damage nor negligence act, it wont be liable untill the contract ends.

Depends if you are talking CL or ML.  I know you said there was a contract; therefore, contract law will apply.  However, in CL a tenant had the duty to repair even if the house blew down in a storm or caught fire.  He also had the duty to pay rent during that time.

ML has changed quite a bit and I would say if there is a contract, then the contract would control.

<!--[if gte mso 9]> Normal 0 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 <!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0cm; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} p {mso-margin-top-alt:auto; margin-right:0cm; mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; margin-left:0cm; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} p.indent, li.indent, div.indent {mso-style-name:indent; mso-margin-top-alt:auto; margin-right:0cm; mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; margin-left:0cm; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:595.3pt 841.9pt; margin:2.0cm 42.5pt 2.0cm 3.0cm; mso-header-margin:36.0pt; mso-footer-margin:36.0pt; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> <!--[if gte mso 10]> T has 2 main duties: to pay rent and not to commit waste

VOLUNTARY WASTE (T’s negligent/intentional conduct causes damage to property, must fix. (If T took hammer and broke window), but also

PERMISSIVE WASTE (neglect/failure to maintain): if the roof is leaking T needs to tell L to fix (major repair) If does not, liable for further damage.

If wind broke window or T noticed that water dripping under the sink over wooden floor (minor repair/maintain) --> T needs to fix himself b/c otherwise would be liable for all addition water damages. (Pay to fix sub-floor and rotten boards)

At CL T was to restore RE even if loss due to act of God, b/c all value was tenancy is conveyance for years, had to return to L reversionary interest w/o waste, basically T was strictly liable for all damages,
ML: T can terminate the lease if RE was destroyed w/o his fault.

Today by statutes: L has duty to repair also consider if disrepair due to normal wear and tear  it might constitute breach of implied warranties of habitability and QE. (Water heater broke, no hot water, can not live w/o hot water, L has to repair, b/c by statute has duty if lease is silent.

In CA:

 

California law makes landlords and tenants each responsible for certain kinds of repairs, although landlords ultimately are legally responsible for assuring that their rental units are habitable.

 

A rental unit must be fit to live in; that is, it must be habitable. In legal terms, "habitable" means that the rental unit is fit for occupation by human beings and that it substantially complies with state and local building and health codes that materially affect tenants' health and safety

 

Some small repairs can be contracted away to T to fix, but major one are responsibility of L by default.  As for less serious repairs, the rental agreement or lease may require either the tenant or the landlord to fix a particular item. Items covered by such an agreement might include refrigerators, washing machines, parking places, or swimming pools. These items are usually considered "amenities," and their absence does not make a dwelling unit unfit for living.

These agreements to repair are usually enforceable in accordance with the intent of the parties to the rental agreement or lease.

Tenant's agreement to make repairs

The landlord and the tenant may agree in the rental agreement or lease that the tenant will perform all repairs and maintenance in exchange for lower rent. Such an agreement must be made in good faith: there must be a real reduction in the rent, and the tenant must intend and be able to make all the necessary repairs. When negotiating the agreement, the tenant should consider whether he or she wants to try to negotiate a cap on the amount that he or she can be required to spend making repairs. Regardless of any such agreement, the landlord is responsible for maintaining the property as required by state and local housing codes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

unless unconscionable or violates pubic policy b/c unsafe and hazardous