Re: tenant at sufferance hasn't paid rent for over a year

More | Report Post

On 2/18/09, Ralph wrote:
> This seems like a classic case of tenancy at sufferance. A
> tenancy at sufferance is when a tenant stays on the property
> after the expiration of the lease. The payment of rent would
> mean that there would be no tenancy at sufferance, but rather
> an extension of the lease (maybe unenforcable without a
> written contract, however).

Your understanding of the definition of a tenant at sufferance
is not quite correct. He is only a tenant at sufferance if he
continues to pay rent after his lease expires and the landlord
accepts the rent. Otherwise he is a trespasser.

First we must distinguish that this was a residential lease, not
a commercial lease. The terms of a tenant at sufferance are
different for commercial leases. Payment of rent does not
change the status of a holdover tenant (tenant at sufferance).
If the landlord accepts the continued payment of rent the tenant
is still a tenant at sufferance.

If the holdover tenant had a 1 year lease before, that lease is
not automatically renewed by paying rent after the prior lease
expired. The tenant is now a tenant at sufferance which means
the tenant may be evicted at the will of the landlord. If the
rent payments are made for one month in advance, the tenant may
be evicted according to the applicable law for evicting a month
to month tenant.

If the tenant remains on the property after the lease expires
and pays no rent, he is not a tenant at sufferance he is a
trespasser. A trespasser on a rental property may be ejected in
a much more expeditious fashion in most every jurisdiction. A
trespasser may be removed by an action for ejectment where as a
tenant must be evicted under the laws of eviction which may take
longer depending on the jurisdiction.

To the Original Poster:

If the lease contracted for services in exchange for payment of
the lease rent it is probably valid. However, the landlord must
determine the term of the original lease. If over 1 year it
must have been in writing.

If the lease for services is found to be a valid contract, the
landloard must bring an action for breach of contract alleging
that the tenant has not upheld his end of the contract of
services in exchange for rent. The tenant will likely claim he
has provided the required services for satisfaction of rent. The
landlord will claim the required services have not been
performed when due. That will be a question of fact for the
trier of fact. The contract will control what services the
tenant had preform and when to satisfy his end of the bargained
for exchange of services for rent. If the landlord establishes
that the contract for services has been breached, he may seek
eviction for non-payment of the rent.