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

LOG IN
LOG IN


Case Citations [i] (Fall 2023)

handle is hein.ali/resdplltnt0042 and id is 1 raw text is: THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE Fall 2023 Citations PROPERTY 2D LANDLORD AND TENANT PART I. CREATION OF THE LANDLORD-TENANT RELATIONSHIP CHAPTER 1. NATURE AND DURATION OF LANDLORD-TENANT RELATIONSHIP § 1.2 Requirement That Right to Possession Be Transferred S.D.2022. Quot. in sup. Apartment resident sued limited-liability company that owned and managed apartment building, alleging that defendant failed to protect plaintiff from being bitten by a dog that was owned by apartment tenant. The trial court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment. This court affirmed, holding, inter alia, that defendant did not have a duty to protect plaintiff as a business invitee from being attacked by dogs on the premises. The court cited Restatement Second of Property: Landlord and Tenant § 1.2 in defining a landlord-tenant relationship, and explained that, here, plaintiff was more accurately construed as a tenant of defendant's apartment complex who paid rent to possess an apartment unit on the premises, and plaintiff was not present on the premises for a purpose connected with defendant's business dealings. Davies v. GPHC, LLC, 980 N.W.2d 251, 259. § 1.4 Lease for a Fixed or Computable Period of Time Cal.App.2022. Cit. but not fol. Commercial landlord filed a complaint for declaratory relief and to quiet title against tenant, seeking an order canceling the lease or, alternatively, canceling an amendment to the lease, on the ground that the amendment extended the lease's term to more than 99 years in violation of a state statute. After a bench trial, the trial court found that the lease was void to the extent that its term exceeded 99 years. This court affirmed that portion of the decision, holding that the unauthorized portion of the term was void, rather than voidable, because it contravened the public policy underlying the statute. In making its decision, the court noted that, while the statute was intended to prevent excessively long leases that unduly hindered the use, development, and marketability of real property, Restatement Second of Property: Landlord and Tenant § 1.4 advocated placing no limits on the terms of commercial leases. Tufeld Corporation v. Beverly Hills Gateway, L.P., 302 Cal.Rptr.3d 203, 213. COPYRIGHT (2023 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.