Sherman Oaks Property Managment

The term landlord refers to a person who owns property and allows another person to use it for a fee. The person using the property is called a tenant. The agreement between a landlord and a tenant is called a lease or rental agreement.

The landlord and tenant relationship has its roots in FEUDALISM, a system of land use and ownership that flourished in Europe between the tenth and thirteenth centuries. Under feudalism land was owned and controlled by a military or political sovereign ruler. This ruler gave portions of land he or she owned to another person, called a lord. The lord, in turn, could allow another person, called a vassal, to use smaller portions of the lord’s land. The vassal pledged allegiance and military or other service to the lord in exchange for the right to live and work on the land.

In 1066, the Normans of France conquered England, and William the Conqueror installed himself as king. King William used the feudal framework of land control to retain political power in faraway lands. Feudalism as a means of political control became obsolete by the fourteenth century, but the hierarchical system of land use and ownership remained.

The contemporary landlord  or his property manager and tenant relationship derives from the relationship between the lord and the vassal. However, today the landlord is the owner of the property—not, like the feudal lord, merely the manager. The tenant is similar to the vassal because the tenant does not own the property but is allowed to use it for a fee.

The landlord/property manager and tenant relationship usually refers to a living arrangement. In this respect landlord and tenant law differs from the law regarding leases. In a landlord and tenant relationship, the parties are often referred to as lessor (landlord) and lessee (tenant). Indeed, a lease is a contract that creates the same relationship as exists between a landlord and tenant: the lessor owns property and allows the lessee to use it for a fee. However, the law of leases does not necessarily concern itself with living arrangements. A lease agreement may, for example, relate to the use of a good or service. Because living arrangements are vital to human existence, landlord and tenant relationships are treated differently from lease contracts.

Generally, a landlord/property manager and tenant relationship exists if (1) the property owner consents to occupancy of the premises; (2) the tenant acknowledges that the owner has title to the property and a future interest in the property; (3) the owner actually has title to the property; (4) the tenant receives a limited right to use the premises; (5) the owner transfers possession and control of the premises to the tenant; and (6) a contract to rent exists between the parties.

A rental contract may be implied under the law. That is, landlord and tenant law may apply even in the absence of a written and signed rental agreement between the owner of the property and the person living on the property. Whether a court will imply a relationship depends on the facts of the case. The court will look at a number of factors, including the owner’s consent to occupancy of the property, the length of the occupancy, and the exchange of monies, goods, or services. A court’s finding that a landlord and tenant relationship exists between two or more persons is significant because the law places duties on both parties in such a relationship.

Traditionally, landlord and tenant law was favorable to landlords. Courts resolved disputes between landlords and tenants according to strict contract and property principles, and tenants often were forced to pick up and move without notice or an opportunity to present an argument to a court. Also, landlords had no obligation to maintain the premises, and many tenants were forced to live in uninhabitable conditions.

In the twentieth century, as urban populations increased and workers became more specialized, landlord and tenant law was forced to change. Typical tenants were no longer as handy at making repairs as were tenants in previous years. They worked long hours, they did not have the time to maintain premises, and building designs and utilities were more complex than before. These developments made maintenance a specialized task that could be carried out only by the landlord.

Before the 1960s, landlords were not required to rent out properties that were fit for habitation. Landlords could rent filthy, ratinfested apartments lacking hot water and heat. Although no one was physically forced to live in such an apartment, for many persons it was the only kind they could afford.

In the 1960s and 1970s, states began to enact landlord and tenant laws requiring that domestic rental properties be made fit for their particular purpose. The IMPLIED WARRANTY of habitability established by statute meant that rental property must have proper plumbing, water, heat, structural integrity, and other basic features necessary for human habitability. These laws required landlords to make domestic rental property habitable even if they did not promise tenants habitable conditions in the rental agreement.

New landlord and tenant statutes further require cities to create housing agencies to enforce the laws governing habitability. These agencies are charged with inspecting domestic rental properties to make sure they meet maintenance standards set forth in statutes and agency regulations. The agencies report to a state agency such as the department of health.

State legislation also governs the financial aspects of the landlord-tenant relationship. Such statutes regulate security deposits, require plain language in rental contracts, require inventory checklists, set rules on damage to rental units, and establish rights and duties upon termination of the rental agreement. In some states some of these laws are set out in court opinions, or case law. However, most landlord and tenant laws are set out in statutes in an attempt to make information about rights and duties accessible and understandable to both parties.

Contemporary landlord and tenant laws vary from state to state. Local lawmaking bodies may enact additional landlord and tenant laws, provided they do not conflict with state laws.

Generally, landlords must deliver the rented premises to the tenant at the beginning of the tenancy, and must disclose to the tenant any potential dangers and defects in the premises. The length of the tenancy should be set out in the rental agreement. If no term is written into the agreement, courts will usually deem the tenancy to be month to month. This means that either party must give the other one month’s written notice before terminating the tenancy.

The cost of rent is usually governed by market forces, which means that it is usually dictated by what landlords in a similar area charge. Local laws in some urban areas, such as New York City, provide for rent control. Rent control laws limit the amount of rent that a landlord may charge a tenant. Most rent control laws, however, put limits on the amount that a landlord may increase the rent. A landlord may raise rent during a rental period only with sufficient notice to a tenant. The terms of this notice are usually set forth in statutes or ordinances.

One important issue in landlord and tenant law is the implied WARRANTY of habitability. If a landlord breaches the warranty of habitability, the landlord may lose the right to collect rent from the tenant, and the tenant may lose a place to live. Mannie Joseph, Inc. v. Stewart, 71 Misc. 2d 160, 335 N.Y.S. 2d 709 (1972), illustrates this process. In Mannie Joseph, a landlord brought suit against a tenant, seeking back rent. The tenant testified in court that the apartment had no heat, no gas for the stove, no hot water, no running water in the kitchen, low water pressure in the bathroom, “ever-present rats and cockroaches,” soggy ceilings and walls, broken windowpanes, no superintendent, and a toilet that did not flush. This testimony was supported in court by the housing director of the West Harlem Community Organization and verified in a personal visit by Judge Richard S. Lane, who noted that the oral testimony had not been sufficient to prepare him for what he saw.

Judge Lane found that the landlord had breached the implied warranty of habitability, and refused to order the tenant to make back rent payments. In his opinion Lane wondered why the tenant should have to pay for what she was receiving. He abated, or forgave, the rent and ordered the landlord to pay the tenant’s court costs.

Lane could have ordered the landlord to make repairs, but there were not enough people still living in the building to warrant such an order. In fact, the department of health had recently ordered the building vacated, and Lane lamented that the tenant would “soon follow her many former co-tenants out into the streets.”