About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


Case Citations [1] (April 2023 - August 2023)

handle is hein.ali/resdplltnt0041 and id is 1 raw text is: THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE Spring 2023 Citations PROPERTY 2D LANDLORD AND TENANT PART I. CREATION OF THE LANDLORD-TENANT RELATIONSHIP CHAPTER 1. NATURE AND DURATION OF LANDLORD-TENANT RELATIONSHIP § 1.5 Periodic Tenancy Ky.App.2022. Com. (f) cit. in ftn. Landlords filed a forcible-detainer complaint against month-to-month tenants who paid rent at the beginning of each month, alleging that tenants failed to vacate the property within 30 days of receiving written notice from landlords. The trial court found tenants guilty of forcible detainer. Reversing and remanding, this court held that landlords' notice was insufficient; while landlords gave tenants notice on August 8, more than 30 days before they filed their complaint on September 8, notice had to be given 30 days prior to the closest periodic rental date, which was September 1. The court explained that the state's forcible-detainer statute and Restatement Second of Property: Landlord & Tenant § 1.5 both required that the notice be provided not only 30 days in advance but also wholly prior to a specified periodic rental date. Young v. House, 648 S.W.3d 706, 710. § 1.6 Tenancy at Will E.D.N.C.2022. Cit. in sup. Tenants who lived in one unit of a duplex sued landlord, property manager, broker, and landlord's nephew, who lived in the other unit, alleging that nephew racially harassed them and that landlord, property manager, and broker were liable for his conduct under the Fair Housing Act and state law. This court denied in part landlord's motion for summary judgment, holding that a genuine issue of material fact existed concerning who knew what, and when, for purposes of determining whether landlord knew or should have known of nephew's racial harassment, and whether property manager and broker's knowledge could be imputed to landlord. The court cited Restatement Second of Property: Landlord & Tenant § 1.6 in noting that, while nothing indicated that nephew worked for landlord or was her agent, landlord could be directly liable for his conduct because she managed the unit in which he lived and she had substantial control over him as her tenant. Harris v. Vanderburg, 584 F.Supp.3d 82, 95. PART II. TENANT'S RIGHTS CHAPTER 6. CONDUCT OF LANDLORD OR THIRD PERSON INTERFERES WITH PERMISSIBLE USE COPYRIGHT C2023 By THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America For earlier citations, see the Appendices, Supplements, or Pocket Parts, if any, that correspond to the subject matter under examination.