Re: tenant at sufferance hasn't paid rent for over a year
Posted by WCSL GONE on 2/18/09

Who freaking cares about this tenant problem? not me !

WEST COAST SCHOOL OF LAW IS DEAD !

On 2/18/09, -- wrote:
> 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.

Posts on this thread, including this one

• tenant at sufferance hasn't paid rent for over a year, 2/18/09, by Ronda.
• Re: tenant at sufferance hasn't paid rent for over a year, 2/18/09, by --.
• Re: tenant at sufferance hasn't paid rent for over a year, 2/18/09, by Ronda.
• Re: tenant at sufferance hasn't paid rent for over a year, 2/18/09, by Ronda.
• Re: tenant at sufferance hasn't paid rent for over a year, 2/18/09, by Ralph.
• Re: tenant at sufferance hasn't paid rent for over a year, 2/18/09, by Ralph.
• Re: tenant at sufferance hasn't paid rent for over a year, 2/18/09, by ask a WCSL expert.
• Re: tenant at sufferance hasn't paid rent for over a year, 2/18/09, by --.
• Re: tenant at sufferance hasn't paid rent for over a year, 2/18/09, by WCSL GONE.
• Re: tenant at sufferance hasn't paid rent for over a year, 2/18/09, by Ronda.
• Re: tenant at sufferance hasn't paid rent for over a year, 2/18/09, by --.