Legal Side of Property Ownership Disputes - Case Study Example

Law Scenario In the first scenario (scenario involving Alf and George’s attractive offer, property law is exhibited and for the two parties to strike a legal and rational deal the must follow the laws of properties commonly referred to as property laws. Property law is a part of law that administrates the vast forms of property possession and the occupancy of rental apartments or in private property. For various countries, these laws are included in the public law authorized system and serve to solve disputes arising from property dealings1. These laws serve to protect the tenants from the unlawful and irrational selfish practices of the property. They also serve to protect the property owner from extortion by the tenants occupying the rentals. In the early modern England there existed the ‘Napoleonic code’ which was the first act of property law in recent times that introduced the overall idea of total ownership merged with the rights of property that was personal and this was incorporated into various laws including the unique laws of Islam. These were enforced in the ordinary laws to steer the society into healthy property existence. Before we proceed let’s get a clear definition of property2. Property in its common usage basically means an object that is possessed by a person. It could be anything ranging from huge high-rise buildings to a pen. In our instance we will use the term property to refer to the converted apartments/flats that were rented out by Alf for the sake of clarity and coherence. In his book “On the History of Property”, James Wilson says in pure coherence: “Property is the right or lawful power, which a person has to a thing”. He gives a clear subdivision of the stated rights. There is; (1) Possession (2) Possession and use then (3) Possession, use and disposition. The case of Alf and George is a clear life application of the three degrees of the property right of ownership. Alf inherited the big house and got possession of it, he then rented it out to Bella, Charles, David, Eva and his niece Fiona and this marks the second degree of possession and usage. Then afterwards George comes with an irresistible offer and forces Alf’s hand into the third degree act of disposition of the property. The life cycle of the three degrees discussed above requires the apartment owner, the tenants and the willing buyer to be vast with the property laws of the locality where the property is situated. This is likely to solve the disputes arising just in case Alf wants to throw out his tenants and sell the house to George 3. In order to make a proper judgment on whether to go ahead and purchase the property, George needs to understand the responsibilities of the landlord and the tenants in the property he wants to purchase to avoid a brush of shoulders with the law. A rational question is asked before knowing these responsibilities, is Alf a good landlord? Are the tenants good tenants? And is George justified in trying to acquire the property despite the fact that it just got rented out and notices haven’t been issued yet? When all these questions are answered a rational advice for George will be obtained. Renting of apartments can be a rigorous and breathtaking process for both the landlord and the potential tenant. Conflicts between the landlord and tenants are likely to arise during the stay and it is thus important to choose your landlord or tenants wisely. It is difficult to establish a universal law to govern the landlord-tenant existence since the state laws varies vastly with the place where the property is located and thus it is important to understand the laws of the locality where a property lies4. In choosing a tenant or a landlord wisdom is required as the wisdom of the decision will have an influence in their future dealings and interactions. It affects the tenant or landlord’s content throughout the stay period till the tenant decides to vacate to another place or the owner decides to transfer ownership to another party 5. George should assess from the way Alf handled his tenants to determine the type of landlord he is just to make sure there aren’t any ill plays between them in the future. Alf is not viewed as a good landlord from the way he treated his niece Fiona. He rented his unfinished basement to his niece. In doing so he violates the responsibility of the landlord as stated in the “the Rhode Island Landlord-tenant Handbook”6 which clearly stipulates that a landlord must keep the rental components in a good and habitable form. This is done by following the state’s construction code prerequisites regarding repair works, renovations and building or rental extensions. It is also required that when a rental element is rented and through the duration of tenancy, the laws dictates that the element meets the housing codes as stipulated in the Rhode Island handbook and any other local laws stipulating the same 7. When there are substandard components in the rental there are certain choices availed to the tenant to take regarding the failure of the landlord to take responsibility. The landlord is served with the sole responsibility of upholding all the regions around the premise both inside it and the entourage as well to the stipulated standards . This includes making facilities like heating, electrical, sanitary and plumbing are operational and meets the building codes. The landlord should also care for minor and major repairs that violate the habitable living conditions of his tenants. As required by the Georgia law, Alf should have made contact with the local authority served with the duty of issuing housing stipulated codes and see to what level are they enforceable in the area of location of the property. In our case there is no mention of Alf having contacted any local authority and this is an indication to George that Alf is not such a good landlord and he should think twice about making the purchase of the house. The basement of Alf’s premises is unfinished yet he wants to sell it out to George. Georgia law clearly states that in the event that the local authority is made aware of violation of safety standards or house codes they can give a direct order for repairs to be done, the rental to be closed or the worst case scenario of demolishing the structure. The basement of Alf’s house is not finished and yet he is attracted to George’s irresistible deal. Just in case George agrees to the deal and the local authority becomes aware of the inhabitable conditions of the premise he might be compelled to incur costs of repair or closing down the premise or even demolish it which is a lose-lose case for George and thus I would advise George to take a step back and wait till the repairs have been done before bringing forth a deal on the table. Alf made a wrong decision in entering a written lease with his tenants if he had in mind that he would sell the property to someone else. He should have made an oral-oral lease which is quite simple to terminate as compared to terminating the terms of a written lease (document). If he had entered an oral lease with his tenants he would have easily terminated it by means of a short notice or by probably hiking the rental payments to scare the tenants off. However, he made a written agreement with his tenants and therefore it is not lawful to evacuate them with a short notice. It would therefore not be easy for him to pass the possession of the property over to George. However the act of Alf is lawful and justified as in entering into a written legal agreement he avoided misunderstandings that were likely to arise. Alf kept a spare key to supervise the workmen in the finishing of the basement. This can be seen by George as a bad act of property ownership. This is justified in the “the ABCs of Housing” which states that the property owner is permitted entry into a tenants rental at a sound time only after the issuance of notice majorly to provide the repairs or reworks that the two parties might have an agreement about. Alf has entered the apartments a few times now without informing his tenants and this is a violation of the house codes. On another perspective this was a good act of ownership which states that a written lease almost automatically grant the landlord the permission to make entry to the named property to show potential buyers or tenants the apartments or to do some vital repair works or repair works that were earlier agreed upon. A deeper look at the situation justifies Alf’s act since he protected by the documents the tenants signed initially. George has a chance of securing possession of the premise if he intends to use the building for rentals as Alf did. It is stated in the “chapter 6; Rental Residential Property” that the lease or written clause does not expire when the building is sold or a tenant dies. In the latter the tenant will still be indebted the rent until a legal property release is conducted while in the former the tenants continue to pay rent to the new property owner and any rental changes should be communicated via notices. If George follows all this stipulated guidelines he has a chance of a freehold acquisition of the property without brushing shoulders with the tenants, the authorities and Alf himself. George can only secure the premises if Alf evicts the tenants due to some legal scuffles8. This is well stipulated in the “Alaska Landlord and Tenant Act”. It is stated that tenancy may be ended if the occupants are late in the payment of rent in which the landlord issues a 7-day notice in the form of writings. The tenant can stay only if payment of the due rent is done before the notice days are up. There is no indication of default in payment from the tenants and Alf would thus have no real reason to issue an eviction notice on that basis. When the tenant has inflicted a tangible amount of damage that is quantified depending on the state, for instance in Alaska the magnitude of damage is quantified at 400 dollars, an eviction notice may be issued to the tenant. There might be cases where the occupants engage in illegal activities (gambling, prostitution or drug peddling) and the landlord may become informed of such ill practices. In such a case the tenant may be issued with a five-day eviction notice. A tenant may fail to pay utility bills like water and electricity to utility companies the landlord is allowed to issue an eviction notice that is effective in 5 days. If the tenant pays for the service and compensates the landlord for payments made he might be allowed to stay. George has a chance of securing the possession of the house if the tenants engage in the illegal activities described above. In such a case Alf is allowed to evict the tenants and handover the possession of the premises to George. The greatest chance George has to securing the apartment is through the rule of protection of tenants after foreclosure of the premises. The “Alaska Landlord and Tenants Act” states that a new purchaser taking over the custody of a residential property is required by law to honor the terms of the contract agreement with the current owner until the expiry of the period of occupancy initially agreed upon9. George can take over the possession of the premises and run it till the end of the lease term then afterwards he can convert it for his own personal use. Bella and Charles have a one year lease period left at the time he tables his offer to Alf while David has already completed his stay. Fiona’s case is different as there is no stipulated time of occupancy and Alf may decide to end the contract by choice to allow for George to take over possession of the premises. In the “Landlord and Tenant Fact Sheet”, it is clearly spelt out that if a buyer wants to utilize the rented space for a different purpose other than to rent it, the landlord should serve the tenant with a two-month notice to terminate the tenancy. This is after the property title has been transferred and all the necessary government paperwork that includes approvals and permits are available when the buyer intends to convert the premise to suit his purpose. George may urge Alf to offer a two-month eviction notice to end their tenancy as required by the law. If after issuance of the notice the tenants move out, then George has a chance of acquiring a freehold vacant possession. Fiona’s case is a month to month type of tenancy and it is not stipulated the duration she is to stay. It is stated in the “Landlord and Tenant Fact Sheet”10 that the landlord is required to issue the occupant a notice that spans for two months to terminate the tenancy. In such a scenario the tenant is compensated a sum of the rental charge for one month. In order to evict Fiona and allow George the possession of the premises Alf will have to issue her with the notice and then pay her a sum equal to a month’s rent value. This will however be a tricky situation for Alf since Fiona is his niece and it will just be a matter of judgment that will save the situation for George. In the cases involving Bella, Charles and Eva they have a fixed-term type of tenancy. Here George has no chance of securing a vacant possession of the premises as it is stipulated in the “Landlord and Tenant Fact Sheet”11 if the tenancy terms dictates that the occupants move out after a fixed duration, the landlord need not to issue any kind of notice to terminate this tenancy. The occupant is required to clear out of the property on the stated final date and no reinstatement or compensation is offered. The landlord is by law not required to evict the occupants afore the ending date. This clearly shows that Alf’s hands are tired by law and hence George has no chance of securing a vacant possession now, maybe later when the occupants with fixed tenures clear out of the premises. Eviction may also be issued if the tenants have breached their terms of stay. If in our case any of the tenants breaches the terms of agreement of the lease they might be evacuated and hence George may grab the opportunity to acquire possession. It is also clear that George’s offer is tempting and this may make Alf to induce any kind of evictions necessary on his tenants but this must be backed by just enough lawful justification. Scenario 2 The covenants that were placed upon Leonard’s land titles are part of the sub-division and advancement of land. Moreover, it is common for land covenants to be breached from time to time and the corresponding neighboring owners not to take any action. For instance the activity of commercial nature or an additional building may be erected and the underlying neighbors might not object 12. The agreement between Leonard and Mary was that the land would be utilize for environmentally friendly purposes solely .Mary covenanted to plant and maintain a line of trees along the underlying boundary amidst her land and that of the Lushland. The owners who purchase the land into the development at later duration not be permitted to enforce covenants in case the activity or structure complained that was purchased. Commonly it is suggested that the underlying covenants which are outdated ought to be capable to be ignored as irrelevant or redundant. Moreover, common assertion is that in case one of the neighbors in the development has got away with something, it is then for others to undertake the same. Any land covenants which are titles are normally enforceable by any of the neighbors at any time. Thus, in case a land owner require to undertake something in breach of the land covenants and most of the neighbors are happy with the act does not prevent the neighbor from taking action then or in the future as in the case of Sarah. Due to these reasons, purchasers of land ought to take particular care to be fully acquainted with any land covenants on the title and be prepared to abide by them. Sarah in regard to the land covenants can liquidate the damages provisions of the land and these provisions state that in case there is a breach and it is not remedied, then liquidated damages or a particular amount can be claimed that can occur on daily basis. The amounts involved are extremely huge. Nevertheless, it is not a defence to a claim for liquidated damages that the claimant has not really suffered a loss of the magnitude. The fact that other neighbors within the subdivision were happy with what was occurring was not relevant. The fact that the neighbor who had taken the claim had not objected to other supplementary breaches covenant by other neighbors in the past was irrelevant. Mary and Ned were entitled to enforcing every covenant at any time This depicts that it is significant to comprehend and be ready to comply with land covenants in case there has been a certain amount of leeway given by neighbors in the past. In case a land owner that is Sarah requires undertaking an activity in breach of land covenants with the assistance of the prevailing neighbors, then the safer course of action is to arrange for the land covenants to be formally varied or surrendered so that the underlying titles maintain the pace with what the neighbors are prepared to accept from time to time. The alternative is to always be at risk of a claim for Sarah to claim for the breach of covenant. The High Court has depicted that the covenants as registered will be enforced in case a claim for enforcement is made. In regard to the enforceability of the covenants in the lease, there are three application of common law principles that might be invoked as a guides that is in case there is privity of contract then the underlying whole covenants are enforceable by one party to the contract against the other. There is privity of contract when the parties have made a legally enforceable agreement creating therein terms and conditions to bind them. Their obligations in the underlying land agreement bind them whether they have anything to do with land or not. The privity of the Lushland covenants mainly touch and concern the land are enforceable. The covenants that affected the nature quality or the value of the thing demised, independently of collateral circumstances. Moreover, covenants implied by the law in the lease touches the land and the enforced by parties when their relation is either that of privity of contract. A covenant affecting land is normally restrictive in case it restricts the undertaking over or under land or in relation to an estate or the interest in land. The restrictive covenant is normally contained is a deed conveying land even though there is nothing to prevent a restrictive covenant. Leonard leased land to Mary and Ned not to utilize the land for purposes other than residential purposes and does not the normal requirement of the privity of contract apply and in case the requirement is not met Leonard is the sole person who can rectify the breaches of the covenant unless there is a voluntary assumption of liability for its breach by Mary and Ned successors within the title to the land 13. It is possible to assign the benefit of the covenant to the purchaser when he sold the property but in the absence of a voluntary assumption of liability on the covenant by the subsequent purchasers of the land the benefit of the covenant would be practically useless, the covenant being designed as it was mainly to enhance the value of the property recollected by Leonard by constraining the utilization of the neighboring property initially conveyed by Mary and Ned. Thus, the restrictive covenant is the contract amidst the dual neighboring land owners by which the covenantee, anxious to maintain the saleable value of his property, acquires the tight to restrain the convenantor from putting his land definite identified uses14. Therefore, at the common law the underlying purchaser of the property was restricted by covenant could with full knowledge of the covenant, purchase the property and ignore the restriction. However, all liability for the breach and, by the similar token, the individual who made the covenant could sell the property in question the next day at the profit and free from the restriction. Sarah through a court can treat the covenant not solely as a contract but also an interest in real property appurtenant to the underlying land owned by the covenantee, or the individual possessing the benefit of the covenant originally, which burdens or encumbers the title to the land owned by Sarah’s father who originally gave the undertaking under the prevailing covenant. Restrictive covenants which mainly benefit land and burden other land, therefore, are akin to the Lushland since there ought to be both a foremost residence of the land to be benefited and a servient residence of the land to be saddled. Nevertheless, in order for any restrictive covenant to have the underlying effect, particular conditions ought to be achieved 15. Sarah can show that the purchasers accepted the deed containing the prevailing restrictive covenant and signed it thus they are bound by the underlying covenant and the covenant mainly operates with the land. The signing is solely an evidentially matter depict that purchasers accepted the restrictive covenant. In creation of the restrictive covenant, it is advisable for Sarah to have conclusive evidence that the purchaser accepted the restrictive covenant and thus it is better the practice to have every purchaser from the sub divider implement the deed containing the required restrictions. Moreover, whether the restrictive covenants are contained within a deed or within a distinct instrument, the underlying document creating them ought to be registered instrument taken by the corresponding purchasers that is Mary and Ned in the registry of the deeds in an attempt to preserve them against the subsequent purchasers for the existing value and devoid of the notice of them16. In case every deed that Mary and Ned who are the subdividers have reserved to themselves that a restrictive covenant not solely imposes a contractual obligation but also creates an rightful right in property and thus the release ought not solely release the purchaser from any liability within the contract but ought to release the underlying property right within the lot. Moreover, the release ought to contain personal liability within the contract17. When Mary and Ned requisitions a release of a restrictive covenant, the underlying vendor frequently takes the position that the prevailing covenant is contractual in nature and does not operate with the underlying land. This is because it does not meet all the required tests which ought to be met prior to the covenant operations of the land. In case a restrictive covenant is breached by Mary and Ned and the corresponding original covenantee or any other individual entitled to the benefit of the prevailing covenant brings the actions against the original covenantor, then the court on the proof of the breach will give Sarah an injunction as of the course devoid of demanding proof of nay injury or prospect of any injury in the future18. Nevertheless, in case the action is against a successor in title of the original covenantor that is Mary and Ned and the plaintiff is thereby entitled to sue the breach in equity solely. An injunction will be given only where there exist continuances of the breach that cause injury to the plaintiff in the future. Bibliography Gray, Kevin J., and Susan Francis Gray. Land law ( 7th edn, Oxford University Press 2011) Kusler, Jon A., and Teresa Opheim. Our national wetland heritage: a protection guide ( 2nd edn,Washington, DC: Environmental Law Institute 1996) Massey, Calvin R. Property: keyed to Dukeminier/Krier/Alexander/Schill ( 7th edn, Austin [Tex.]: Wolters Kluwer Law & Business 2010) The Rhode Island Landlord-Tenant Handbook (LTH 1 2000) Brenneman, Russell L., and Sarah M. Bates. 1984. Land-saving action: a written symposium by 29 experts on private land conservation in the 1980s (Covelo, Calif: Island Press 1984) Singh, Avtar, and Harpreet Kaur. Textbook on the Transfer of Property Act. (Delhi, [India]: Universal Law Publishing 2009) Sexton, Roger, and Barbara Bogusz. Land law: text, cases, and materials ( 3rd edn, Oxford University Press, 2013) Hartmut Wicke, and Würzburg. Real Property Law and Procedure in the European Union ( Final version, European University Institute, Florence 2005) Galaty, Fillmore W., Wellington J. Allaway, and Robert C. Kyle. Modern real estate practice in Ohio ( 5th edn,Chicago, IL: Dearborn Real Estate Education 2001) MacKenzie, Judith-Anne, and Mary Phillips. Textbook on land law. ( 14th edn, Oxford University Press 2012) Sayles, Victoria. Land law: concentrate. ( 3rd edn, Oxford University Press 2013) Burn, E. H., John Cartwright, and Ronald Harling Maudsley. Maudsley & Burns land law: cases and materials ( 9th edn, Oxford University Press 2009) Thompson, M. P. Modern land law (5th edn, Oxford University Press 2012) Great Britain. Making land work: easements, covenants and profits à prendre : presented to Parliament pursuant to section 3(2) of the Law Commissions Act 1965 ( Stationery Office 2011) Mattei, Ugo. Basic principles of property law: a comparative legal and economic introduction ( 1st edn, Greenwood Press 2000) Smith, Roger J. Property law. ( 6th edn, Longman 2008) Dutfield, Graham. Global intellectual property law commentary and materials / Graham Dutfield . Northampton, (Edward Elgar Pub 2005) http://www.myilibrary.com?id=180142. Alaska Landlord and Tenant Act (Alaska court system 2012) Landlord and Tenant Fact Sheet (RTB-125 2011) Norman, Helen E. Intellectual property law ( Oxford University Press 2009) Hutt, Sherry. Cultural property law: a practioners guide to the management, protection, and preservation of heritage resources (Section of Environment, Energy, and Resources, American Bar Association 2004) Read More