Landlord responsibilities on tenant-built structures? In the US, nearly every state has some form of an implied warranty of habitability created between landlords and their tenants. For example, jurisdictions may require landlords to provide heating, electricity, water, do repairs, install locks, and so on. But does this still apply for tenant-built property? For example, let’s say I own a piece of land and rent it out on a long-term lease (5+ years). My lessee would like to build a cabin on the property, and I add as a term of our contract that the tenant can build a cabin, but that I’m not responsible for repairs. Does the tenant still retain the warranty of habitability if they build the property?
A lease of land is not the same as a residential lease, the latter being strongly regulated by special laws. So caveat emptor is the default rule for land leases (see this article). You have to look at the laws of your state, but let's take Washington as an example. This is not a residential tenancy which is subject to different laws, it's just leasing land, similar to leasing a chainsaw or a car. Your implied warranty would be that the land is fit for the ordinary purposes for which land is used, and that is all. It might be worth wondering about whether building a cabin on the land changes your property tax liability.
You have a contract - if you break it, you can be sued. A contract is a legally binding promise that the state (through its courts) will enforce. You promised to pay the deposit - you must pay the deposit. You promised to pay rent on a regular basis for the period of the lease - you must pay that rent. You don't want to live there? Fine, the lease probably doesn't require you to. So long as you keep paying the rent, you don't have to. If you break the lease, then the landlord can sue you for the damage that they suffer - this is typically the value of the rent until they can find a new tenant and if that tenant is paying less than you, the difference between that amount and your rent for the balance of the lease. If you want to renegotiate the contract (for example, to end it early), you will need to ask your landlord but they are under no legal obligation to release you from it. They may be willing to do so out of the goodness of their heart and/or if you pay them.
By default, the tenant is liable for all rent until the end of the lease. E.g. if neither the tenant nor the landlord can find a suitable and credit-worthy replacement tenant (e.g. if the market has crashed), then the whole lease must still be accounted for by the original tenant, and the lost "rent" becomes "damages". However, there is also a concept of damage mitigation, and California Civil Code 1951.2 explicitly defines that it's the landlord's duty to mitigate damages. This means that the landlord cannot simply sit still and collect the rent on an empty apartment. Because of this, some smaller landlords in California outright have a policy that you can cleanly break the lease by paying for 2 months of rent as a penalty. (It appears that a good summary of various examples about landlord/tenant damage mitigation is available at UniformLaws.org.) However, when it comes down specifically to the SF Bay Area with the ever increasing rents and the lowest residential vacancy rates in the nation, and also especially with the corporate landlords that already have sufficient resources in place to readily advertise and promote an abandoned unit, it can probably be argued that, in practicality, requesting more than one month of rent (in damages) as a penalty for breaking the lease is simply unreasonable.
In general, and in particular in New Jersey, a new owner takes possession subject to existing rental agreements, and in particular subject to existing leases, unless there is a provision in the lease to the contrary. This happens automatically, by law. Thus any lease is as enforceable against the new owner as it would have been against the old. But how enforceable is this arbitration agreement? How enforceable would it have been against the old owner O? The basic fact about a month-to-month tenancy is that either party may end it on one month's notice, for any reason or none. Moreover, when a new owner intds to occupy the premises personally, or use them for his or her family, the requirement to honor a previous lease is, in general, not applicable. T might be able to force N to go through arbitration, depending on the wording of the agreement, and on whether the written lease applies at all after the end of the first year (which it may well not). But on the facts as stated in the question, T would lose in arbitration as well as in court, and if there is any increased expense because of the arbitration, T would be obliged tom pay it. Let us look at the actual NJ law N.J.S.A. 2A:18-53 provides that: any lessee or tenant at will or at sufferance, or for a part of a year, or for one or more years, of any houses, buildings, lands or tenements, ... may be removed from such premises by the Superior Court, Law Division, Special Civil Part in an action in the following cases: a. Where such person holds over and continues in possession of all or any part of the demised premises after the expiration of his term, and after demand made and written notice given by the landlord or his agent, for delivery of possession thereof. The notice shall be served either personally upon the tenant or such person in possession by giving him a copy thereof or by leaving a copy of the same at his usual place of abode with a member of his family above the age of 14 years. [emphasis added] Section 2A:18-56 provides that: No judgment for possession in cases specified in paragraph &quot;a.&quot; of section 2A:18-53 of this Title shall be ordered unless: a. The tenancy, if a tenancy at will or from year to year, has been terminated by the giving of 3 months' notice to quit, which notice shall be deemed to be sufficient; or ? b. The tenancy, if a tenancy from month to month, has been terminated by the giving of 1 month's notice to quit, which notice shall be deemed to be sufficient; [emphasis added] Section 2A:18-57 provides that: If no sufficient cause is shown to the contrary when the action comes on for trial, the court shall issue its warrant to any officer of the court, commanding him to remove all persons from the premises, and to put the claimant into full possession thereof, and to levy and make the costs out of the goods and chattels of the person in possession. No warrant of removal shall issue until the expiration of 3 days after entry of judgment for possession, except as provided for in chapter 42 of this Title. Section 2A:18-61.1 provides that: No lessee or tenant or the assigns, under-tenants or legal representatives of such lessee or tenant may be removed by the Superior Court from any house, building, mobile home or land in a mobile home park or tenement leased for residential purposes, other than (1) owner-occupied premises with not more than two rental units or a hotel, motel or other guesthouse or part thereof rented to a transient guest or seasonal tenant; ... except upon establishment of one of the following grounds as good cause ... [emphasis in original] h. The owner seeks to retire permanently the residential building or the mobile home park from residential use or use as a mobile home park But note that good cause is not required for an owner-occupied dwelling with no more than two rental units. T would be wise to consult a lawyer knowledgeable about landlord/tenant law in NJ before attempting to contest the notice or eviction.
The possession is not adverse during the tenancy, so the clock does not run. If the tenancy contract ends or is violated for [appropriate length depending on location] with no reaction from the landlord, that is grounds for adverse possession.
In practice, the legal requirements for a dwelling to be considered legal and fit for registering as a residence with the government in Denmark are often enforced by the local municipalities, which have the power to interpret and apply the laws and statutes according to their specific circumstances and needs. The checklist provided below is based on the general principles and guidelines set out in the relevant legislation and regulations, but it may vary depending on the local context and the specific characteristics of each dwelling. The Danish Building Act (Byggeloven): The Danish Building Act sets out the basic requirements for all buildings in Denmark, including dwellings. It defines the minimum requirements for size, health, safety, and location, and provides guidelines for construction, renovation, and demolition. The act is constantly updated to reflect new building technologies and changes in society's needs and expectations. The Danish Water Supply Act (Vandforsyningsloven): The Danish Water Supply Act sets out the requirements for the quality and safety of drinking water, as well as the responsibilities of the water supply companies and the consumers. The act ensures that all buildings have access to clean and safe drinking water and that the drainage system does not cause pollution or health hazards. The Danish Wastewater Act (Spildevandsloven): The Danish Wastewater Act regulates the disposal of sewage and other wastewater, and sets out the requirements for the treatment and discharge of wastewater. The act ensures that all buildings have proper drainage and that the environment is protected from pollution. The Danish Planning Act (Planloven): The Danish Planning Act sets out the guidelines for land use planning, including the designation of residential zones and the approval of building permits. The act ensures that all buildings are located in appropriate areas and that the surrounding environment is protected from inappropriate development. The Danish Rent Act (Lejeloven): The Danish Rent Act regulates the relationship between landlords and tenants, including the rent level, the notice periods, and the rights and obligations of both parties. The act ensures that all dwellings are rented out fairly and that the tenants have adequate housing standards. The following laws seem to be relevant when we start considering applying them to your conditional checklist: Size Occupancy Problem There is no minimum size requirement for a dwelling in Denmark, but there are regulations that specify how much space is required per person. The Danish Building Regulations specify that a dwelling must have a minimum floor area of 20 square meters per person. However, this does not necessarily apply to tiny homes or other non-traditional forms of housing, as long as they meet the minimum space requirements and other safety and health standards. The maximum number of occupants allowed in a dwelling is determined by its size, layout, and facilities, as well as the health and safety requirements set out in the Building Act and other regulations. Overcrowding is not permitted. Health Care Facility The Danish Water Supply Act sets out the requirements for the quality and safety of drinking water, as well as the responsibilities of the water supply companies and the consumers. The act ensures that all buildings have access to clean and safe drinking water and that the drainage system does not cause pollution or health hazards. This act deals with land property too. The dwelling must have adequate access to emergency services, such as fire, police, and ambulance. Enforced by this, residence must have it. The water supply and drainage system must meet the requirements set out in the Danish Water Supply Act (Vandforsyningsloven) and the Danish Wastewater Act (Spildevandsloven) in residence. Legal and enforced If a dwelling does not meet the legal requirements for size, health, safety, or location, it is considered illegal and can be subject to fines, demolition, or other enforcement measures by the local municipality or the Building Appeals Board (Huslejenævnet). Illegal dwellings are those that are not approved for residential use, or that have been altered without the necessary permits and inspections. The local municipality has the authority to enforce the Building Act and other relevant legislation and regulations. Permits and approvals: Depending on the specific circumstances, a dwelling in Denmark may require various permits and approvals from local authorities, such as planning permission or building permits. There might be many more laws, bindings, and promises to make, but these are compulsion with some relaxation to above situations. The question examples and requirements deal to land reforms, and health-care facility.
The primary legal question is whether the resident (tenant) has breached a duty of care. There are all sorts of laws establishing duties of care, such as between doctor and patient, which may be created by a legislature or may be part of common law tradition. There is a duty of care imposed on a landlord w.r.t. the tenant, requiring that the premise be &quot;secure&quot;, therefore a landlord might easily be held liable if the main door into the building was not locked. This duty is a specific instance of a general duty from tradesman/businessman to customer. As far as I can determine, there is no such statutory duty imposed on tenants in Washington state, and none from case law being revealed by a few cursory searches. In order to be subsumed under general &quot;everybody has a duty to everybody else&quot; law, the damage would have to be foreseeable. It is said that &quot;If something is foreseeable, it is a probable and predictable consequence of the defendant’s negligent actions or inaction&quot;. This mean that a reasonable person would have known that, under the circumstances, the damage is likely to result. Circumstances vary quite a bit, and there is no general rule about holding the door open for another person. If there is abundant signage reminding tenants to never ever let in a stranger no matter that their excuse and/or if the premise is in a crime war-zone, the outcome is more likely to be considered to be foreseeable.
A landlord may have an agent, whether an employee or a family member, prepare an itemized statement of deductions on the landlord's behalf. The landlord is just as responsible for its contents as if the landlord had prepared it personally, and the tenant need not know or care who actually prepared it. If it is knowingly excessive, that may constitute bad faith no matter who prepared it. The tenant's options for challenging the statement of deductions are not changed based who exactly prepared the list.