PROPERTY I, COLLETT
BACKGROUND INFO:
I. Common Law Estates: Titles come from the State.
A.
B. Fee Simple Conditional/ Fee tail (illegal in TX)- Conditional on birth of an heir. If that event is the birth of an issue (heir that is in the bloodline) then called a Fee Tail, majority says you have to be survived by issue, not just have issue. The Statute de Donis created the Fee Tail, must use the language "to A and his heirs" in order to create it. The Fee Tail is outdated in every state but a few. The FT always followed by a reversion or remainder. The FSC is an old estate that IS NOT ON THE EXAM.
C. Life Estate- Gives a person an interest until the end of a life. The life tenant (or measuring life) and the possessor of the property need not be the same person. Possessor can alienate this property, however his term ends at the end of his life therefore so does all the interests he creates. Possessor is normally responsible for all taxes and to maintain the property to retain its value for future interest holders, failure to do so is waste and is a COA for the F/I holders. This estate is easily created "to A for life". However, modern courts have frowned upon this and have tried to imply an intent of the testator to have created a FSA.
The remainder left over in a L/E is either a reversion back to the grantor; or a remainder or a shifting or springing executory interest given to a third party.
D. Defeasible Estates- would be a FSA but for a provision in the conveyance stating that it should end upon the happening of an event or non-event. Either of these can be tacked on to a Life Estate or a Term for X years conveyance.
1. Fee Simple Determinable- Ends automatically upon that event. "This land is yours unless liquor is sold on the property", "during", "so long as". The future interest following it is called Possibility of Reverter. Thus if that event occurs then the estate reverts back to the grantor or a third party. If it is going to a third party, it must be expressly in the document and is called "subject to an executory limitation" which gives the third party an "executory interest". The person who grants this could have either a L/E or FSA. [NEED INK CASE STUFF HERE]
2. Fee Simple Subject to a Condition Subsequent- Same as above yet not automatic, it has to be asserted by the holder. Such words used are "provided that", "but if". The future interest following it is called Right of Reentry. Once again, if the F/I is going to a third party then it is called a fee simple subject to an executory limitation. The person who grants this has retained the power to terminate that which would otherwise be a FSA had it not been for the Subject to Condition Subsequent.
FSS to a Conditional Subsequent is the preferred Estate over FS Determinable when language is ambiguous.
II. Future Interests- not capable of immediate possession, however it is a property right and will vest at some future time. Two Types:
A. Those created in the grantor or transferor or their heirs; there are three of them:
1. Reversion- these are never expressly created, yet implied from what the grantors/transferors have not transferred thus these are always vested even if uncertain if it will become a possessory interest. These are alienable by deed, devisable by will, and descendible under state intestate statutes. A reversion will always follow a contingent remainder because it is not vested.
2. Right of Reentry
3. Possibility of Reverter
B. Those created in the grantee or transferee, cannot be by the transferor:
1. Remainder- would be possessed presently were it not for the existence of a possessory interest. (1) Created at the same time as the prior possessory interest currently present. (2) The remainder takes over immediately upon the end of the prior possessory estate; (3) however, the prior estate must end naturally- cannot be cut short by a divesting event. (4) remainder must be received by someone other than the transferor. These can be created in a FSA, FSD, FSSCS, L/E, or a Term of Years conveyance.
The holder of a remainder does not have to survive the prior estate, this condition must be expressed if testator wants it, otherwise the remainder is vested in the holder and can pass to his heirs or whatever he wants to do with it.
A. Vested- Transferor has a present intent (time of transfer) to create a present right in the future interest; 3 categories:
1. Subject to open/partial divestment- "To A for life then her children", this is open until A dies or cannot have any more children.
2. Subject to condition subsequent- "To A and her heirs, but if used for a tavern, then to C", thus would also be subject to complete divestment.
Heir of a vested remainder can inherit, take by will, take by conveyance the remainder. The holder also can sue for waste or partition if necessary; holder of contingent remainder does not have this access.
B. Contingent- If still contingent (not vested) upon end of the prior estate then this remainder is destroyed and usually followed by a reversion (rule of destructibility). However, sometimes it is preserved "to A for life then to children of B who reach 21", if A dies and B’s oldest is only 16, it could revert to the grantor or held in trust until B’s child reaches 21.
1. Held by an unborn person
2. Held by an unascertained person
3. Or subject to a condition precedent.
All others are vested, preference is to classify as vested if possible.
2. Executory Interests- cuts short the former estate on some stated event or arises at some point after the expiration of a possessory estate (this is the main difference between this and a remainder, remainder must end naturally). Invented to avoid the rule of destructibility. Can follow a remainder in fee simple. Allowed transferors to convey the fee twice. Statute of Uses in 1535 implemented this.
A. Shifting- cuts short a prior possessory or vested estate without a gap in seisin. Divests someone other than the grantor.
B. Springing- becomes possessory after a gap in time between it and the prior estate. "To A for life, then five years after A’s death, to B". Divests the grantor.
III. Special Rules of Construction:
A. Merger Rule-
1. When the same person holds two successive interests and both are vested.
2. Or two vested interests with an intervening contingent remainder.
Then the two interests are vested into one, except in two instances: (1) a fee tail does not merge with a fee simple and (2) when an intervening contingent remainder divides the two vested interests then no merger occurs.
B. Rule in Shelley’s Case (only in Ark): When a devise or conveyance transfers a freehold estate to a person and in the same instrument also transfers a remainder to that person’s heirs or the heir’s of his body, both are considered to be held by the first named freeholder, either for life, FSA, or in Fee Tail. Thus increased alienability and lessened control of the "dead hand". This is not a canon of construction to ascertain intent but rather a rule of law, so intent makes no difference. Broken down into three requirements:
1. Freehold estate given to first transferee.
2. Remainder limited to the heirs of the first taker in the same instrument (thus can be avoided by putting them in separate instruments).
3. The freehold and the remainders being of the same quality (both legal or both equitable in nature) (thus could put one party’s interest in trust, an equitable interest to avoid the rule).
Abolished in a majority of States today.
C. Doctrine of Worthier Title: Applies to inter vivos conveyances only. Thus, when O conveys "to A for life, then to O’s heirs" the remainder is void and O holds a reversion which he can convey. A rule of construction, however, there is authority in some states to hold it as a rule of law. Since O still holds the reversion, it can be subject to levy and sale by O’s creditors. To avoid this rule, O must change up the wording and meaning of "heir" a little; "to A for life, remainder to those persons who would be my heirs at A’s death" would suffice.
D. Rule Against Perpetuities-
Any interest, other than one in the testator, grantor, or transferor, is invalid when it might (1) vest or fail to vest as a remainder, or (2) become possessory, or not, as an executory interest, at a time more distant than 21 years after a life in being at the effective date of the transferor’s instrument.
[need to do a bunch of problems here out of workbook!]
IV. Concurrent Interests- When two or more concurrently hold rights to an estate. Presumed to be equal shares unless there is an agreement to the contrary. The estate could be a L/E, FSA, or FSSCS, whatever else.
A. Tenancy in Common-
B. Joint Tenancy- cotenants do not have a devisable and descendible interest. Their undivided fractional interests pass to surviving cotenants upon death. Thus, the last surviving cotenant holds the whole estate (whatever estate it was) outright in his name; if a cotenant murders another cotenant, the murderer forfeits his right of survivorship. This is a K theory in TX, not property. These are useful in marriages because widow/er would get title, free of any claims on the estate of the predeceasing spouse. C/L requires there be four "unities" at time of creation of a J/T:
(1) must start or vest at the same time, and
(2) each must get their undivided & equal interest in the same document, and
(3) each interest must last for the same period of time, and
(4) each cotenant must also have a right to possess the whole.
Generally, a lack of one of the unities creates a tenancy in common instead of a J/T.
Following creation, one Joint tenant can give another right to possession or their share of rents and profits.
Ex. O conveys to A and B for their joint lives as joint tenants. This is not a joint tenancy because the present interests created last no longer than the joint lives of A and B. Rather life estates with a reversion in O are created and A and B are mere cotenants for life.
Severance: when one or more of the unities is destroyed, the J/T is said to be severed and thus a Tenancy in Common is then created. This can be done either voluntary or involuntary; if all the cotenants execute a contract to sell the land then it is voluntarily severed. If the property is sold by court order to settle a judgment against one of the cotenants, then it is involuntarily severed; the remaining cotenants remain joint tenants among themselves, but become collectively tenants in common with the purchaser at the court ordered sale.
Ex. A, B, and C have a J/T. C conveys his part to D, thus severing the J/T. A and B continue in J/T with each other but are now reform to be a T in C with D, each having a one-third interest, majority rule.
Secrecy: It is now common for one of the tenants to sever the J/T by conveying to herself. She can do this without the use of a strawman, usually by using her attorney. While most courts allow this, they should be on the lookout for fraud. She may do this in secrecy, holding onto it to see if she is the sole surviving Joint Tenant, if so she would then destroy the severance and take the whole property. Should it be different in commercial transactions, a requirement of notice to severe?
Today tenancy in common is the preferred estate over J/T if a devise is ambiguous or unless an intent to do otherwise is clear (majority rule).
C. Tenancy by the Entirety (not in TX)- Only available to married couples; their marriage must precede the acquisition of the designated property. A J/T with not only the rights of survivorship but also immunity from the claims of the creditors of each joint tenant. Neither party can partition the property alone, both have to agree. This estate available in less than half of the estates. Where available, a conveyance to spouses presumes to have created an entirety; however, this presumption may be rebutted by facts or words in the deed to the contrary.
D. Things attributable to all the Concurrent Estates-
1. Ouster- an interference with the right of another cotenant. Changing the locks could be an ouster. When one ouster’s others, they may be entitled to fair rental value of their interest’s portion. However, without an ouster or some other agreement, no cotenant is liable to pay rent to the others. Ousted party has to prove he demanded entrance and was denied.
2. Accounting- an equitable action where a cotenant seeks to have another cotenant reveal the books, the rent and profits. P also usually wants his or her fair share of those monies as well.
3. Contribution- a cotenant seeks reimbursement for expenses accrued in repairing/maintaining/operating the property. These are usually taxes or other expenses protecting the title of the property. General improvement is considered a gift, like mowing the lawn.
4. Partition- seeks to end the cotenancy when the parties cannot agree on its operation or management. Purpose is to increase alienability of property. Any agreement by the parties to not partition is usually upheld by the courts when it is reasonable in time.
1. Partition in Kind- this is the physical division of the property. Hard to do sometimes when the acreage differs in value across it. Burden on P to justify the terms of sale. If all parts not equal, then a money payment by one party can be used to make it fair; such a payment is called owelty. This is court preferred.
2. Partition by Sale- Property is sold and the money is distributed. Any money spent on improvements that is reflected in an upshot of value of the property is thus awarded to that tenant who performed the improvement. Courts have broad discretion here. (1) physical attributes of land have to make it impossible to partition, and (2) interest of owners better promoted by sale. This is normally what is granted because if "in kind" was possible then the parties probably would have already figured that out on their own.
E. Joint Bank Accounts- Banking statutes will normally govern this over property law.
1. Convenience Account- the owner will give someone access to the account simply for convenience, this does not give that person half rights to it. Like an elderly person or a college kid.
2. Survivorship Account- "poor man’s will", the survivor gets the account, some jurisdictions don’t allow this without proof of deceased’s intent. There is also another type of Survivorship account, the "pay on death designation account", this creates a property interest that arises upon death of the owner, TX allows this.
3. Joint Tenancy Account- present rights of ownership with survivorship rights. Four unities of J/T do not always apply here.
When there is interpretation problems, bank will "interplead" the money and let a court handle it. A "signature card" is only intended to protect the bank; not real good evidence to use to assert your rights.
V. The Marital Estate- This only applies from the marriage on, none of the property acquired prior to.
A. Common Law-
1. Must be a valid marriage in the claimant, spouse must also be married to deceased at time of death. A final divorce may extinguish a dower claim by agreement; however, a pending one will not. Some couples keep the whole dower out of a relationship by prenuptial agreement; common in second marriages.
2. The deceased must have sole beneficial seisin. This means that any property the deceased held in a J/T or trust is not subject to a dower claim. Dower does not include reversions or remainders either unless they were possessory at time of death.
Parties can protect themselves from dower claims by the prenup, or also by putting property in trusts. Trusts are equitable interests and dowers only apply to legal interests.
The modern view of this is to give the survivor a certain amount no matter what the will says. Usually one third or one-half; former when there are also kids, latter when no kids. Applies to both legal and equitable interests. Some states require that if the survivor takes this option, then they forego any devises under the will, some states don’t do this. This does not apply to a life insurance policy when the beneficiaries are named.
B. Community Property- Property controlled by a system of marital partnerships. This is used in TX, thus no tenancy by the entirety. These are tweaked to each state’s statutes. Generally, all property acquired prior to marriage is separate. All other property is community. Earnings off of separate property is either one, community or separate, pending on the state. Most states allow separate property to become community and vice versa if the parties so desire. Upon death, survivor has control over one-half the community property, subject to claims of creditors. In TX, any income from separate property is community property.
In 1948, IRS changed tax code to give a tax advantage to all citizens with the "married, filing jointly" category. Prior to that, community property states had a slight tax advantage.
The big debate over these two categories is what the creditors will be able to attach. Pro for creditors says the more rights they have then the more credit will be available. Cons say this makes the family vulnerable if they can take so much.
C. Homestead Laws- There are both federal (bankruptcy code) and state homestead protections. Depends on what court you are in for which one applies. This normally allows for one residence and some surrounding property, in TX this is a constitutional right.
VI. The Landlord and Tenant Relationship- A lease for a period of time followed by a reversion.
A. Periodic Tenancy- can only be terminated by notice effective at the end of the period specified in the lease. Thus, it is one that goes month to month, year to year. It endures until one of the parties gives the notice required to end it.
B. Tenancy at Will- not transferable and continues only by mutual agreement. Very uncommon, can be either express or implied. Either party can terminate it "at will". Like letting a friend stay for an unspecified time rent-free is a T at W.
C. Lease (technically called a "term for years")- an agreement where one party divests himself of property to another for a set period of time. Thus, the LL has a reversion. This is usually a contract for a set time and rent. The most common.
D. Tenancy at sufferance- any of the three types above except that now the tenant has held over past the end of the term. Has to be voluntary. LL can treat them as a trespasser and evict, or could treat it as though the tenant has renewed the K for a new term. The length of term is now in doubt, most hold that a month-to-month periodic tenancy is now created. Leaving furniture or failing to return keys is not considered a holdover so long as it does not interfere with the LL’s repossession.
First Day duty of LL. In America, the LL does not have to deliver actual possession on the first day. The remedy is damages over specific performance for this delay caused by the LL. English does require that the premises be actually delivered on the first day.
VI. Nature of the Tenant/LL relationship- Assignment v. Sublease
A. Assignment- this is where the tenant transfers the whole of the unexpired term to a third party, an assignee. They do not have to transfer their whole interest, an assignment of a portion of their interest is called assignment pro tanto. LL’s like this because they can go directly to the assignee for rent due. Here it is called "payment" paid in lump or periodic by the assignee.
B. Sublease- this is a partial transfer of the unexpired term. This creates a new LL/T relationship between the sublessor and sublessee. Here the sublessee is only bound to the sublessor, not the original LL. The original tenant is only bound to the original LL under the primary or "head" lease. Tenants like subleases because they can keep any profits from higher rents. Here it is called "rent" paid by the sublessee.
The traditional and majority rule is that when the tenant retains any interest in the premises that it is considered a sublease. These interests might be a right of re-entry or possibility of reverter. A tenant’s mere guarantee to pay the rent in the default of the assignee will not be a sufficient interest to prevent many courts from finding an assignment. This rule operates regardless of the actual intent of the parties.
Privity of Estate and Privity of Contract. The LL and Tenant are said to be in P of C because T is liable to LL for rent under their K. However, a sublessee is not in P of C with a LL because they have no direct K. Yet, an assignee (but not a sublessee) is in P of E with the LL because they are in his property, so he can collect rent from them.
If the LL approves, then the sublessee or assignee will be in P of C with the LL as a substitute for the original tenant. However, this does not automatically severe the original LL and tenant’s K.
So, what does all this mean? A LL can sue a tenant for rent who has subleased because of P of C and also a tenant’s assignee because of P of E. The LL cannot sue a sublessee, the sublessee is only liable to the tenant. The LL can have only one recovery though. It is also frequently held that the tenant is held as a surety if the assignee does not pay. The tenant can then sue the assignee on the principle of subrogation.
Real Covenants- [do I need this?]
LL’s consent to a sublease or assignment- absent a provision barring otherwise, a tenant is free to alienate his interest without the LL’s consent. However, this can be restricted if expressly in the lease, it must be reasonable though. If too restrictive, then construed against the LL. In TX, if the lease is silent, you CAN’T sub or assign, however you can K around this by expressly putting it in there.
If there is a provision against this in the K, the majority rule allows the LL to refuse no matter what the circumstances are. However, if he accepts rent from them, then he has waived his rights to bitch about it. A minority rule state that the LL have a reasonable basis for refusing to allow a sublessee/assignee. This reasonableness includes financial stability of new tenant, and nature of usage; not a matter of personal taste such as race or sex. Thus, a LL may not arbitrarily refuse a perfectly good applicant.
No matter what the situation is, the LL must make clear his rights concerning this to the tenant. Even then, the courts will look to see if these provisions were freely bargained for.
The Rule in Dumpor’s Case- when a lease states no assignments without consent, once the LL consents to a first assignment, he has waived his right to consent to further and future assignments. However, LL can defeat this simply by reserving the right to consent to future assignments. Dumpor’s does not apply to covenants prohibiting/limiting subleasing, only assignments.
VII. Waste, Repair, and Destruction of Leased Premises-
A. Waste- Tenant has a duty to the LL not to commit waste. Tenant has a duty to return the premises to LL as received minus normal wear and tear. Thus, anything that substantially injures the LL’s reversion could be considered waste. The parties can bargain around this thus waiving a tenant’s liability for waste if they so choose. Most jurisdictions have awards of double or triple the amount of actual damages. Two types:
1. Voluntary Waste- direct, willful, or intentional injury to premises.
2. Permissive Waste- neglect or omission of the property to its demise.
B. Duty to Repair- At C/L, tenant had the duty to repair. This duty started the minute he took possession, thus the rule of tenant beware applied. This remains today in commercial leases absent a term in the K to the contrary. However, issues concerning health and safety in residential leases have been shifted upon the LL under the implied warranty of habitability (more on this later). These standards of habitability are often measured by local codes, which often differ from each jurisdiction. Yet even under this warranty, the tenant is responsible for minor repairs.
Exceptions to tenant’s duty to repair: LL is responsible for all common areas and industrial areas such as the furnace room; when LL does make a repair, regardless of whether he had a duty to do so, he must do it without negligence; and finally, LL may be responsible for latent defects which he knew or should have known.
C. Destruction- Originally, tenant boar all the risk of destruction of the improvements to the land. Thus, if the house burned down, T still had to pay rent because he had leased the land and not the house. So absent an agreement otherwise, T could not terminate the lease.
Since then the law has obviously changed. Now the risk of destruction is on the LL, except where the land itself is the subject of the lease. This gives the T, not the LL, the power to terminate upon sudden destruction of the improvements on the land.
Security Deposits- Landlords routinely require tenants to make a security deposit to secure against waste and common repairs beyond normal wear and tear. After deduction for repair, these are returned at the end of the lease. Due to abuse, a majority of states have put restrictions on the LL in this situation:
1. A max amount of one or two months rent.
2. Must be kept separate from other funds and sometimes paid interest on it; cannot be susceptible to LL’s creditors.
3. A reasonable accounting procedure for the use of it.
4. A provision for multiple damage awards (double and treble) and attorney’s fees when not returned properly or abused.
VIII. Termination and Abandonment of Leased Premises- all leases are over with when they end as stated in the lease. If not stated, then they may be renewing automatically by matter of law on a yearly, monthly, or some other basis pending on the situation. When the end date is not stated, there must be some sort of notice given to the other party. This notice must be done in the proper amount of time, if not then new notice must be given in accordance with the time, the old one will not "roll over" and become effective.
A. Self-Help- no LL in any jurisdiction is ever allowed to use force to regain possession of the premises, no matter what the lease says. This is not allowed in TX. However, he may be able to use self-help if two conditions are met:
1. The LL must have a legal right to possession, and
2. The use of self-help is peaceful.
This "peaceful" part is hard to meet. The burden is on LL to be peaceful. Lockouts have been considered not peaceful. Some states have abolished self-help altogether because of confrontational problems arising from it. The rational for this is that alternatively they offer a LL a quick remedy in court (7-10 days) to regain possession lawfully; often called "summary possession or summary ejectment statutes". This scrutiny of peacefulness is more strictly applied in residential leases than commercial but readily apparent in both.
B. Ejectment- P must have a legal, not equitable, interest that can give her possession at the time the action is commenced. Thus, a LL must have a current right of possession shown in the lease. D must also be the actual occupant of the premises.
C. Abandonment v. Surrender- abandonment is where the tenant leaves all by himself; thus, leaving the unexpired term of his lease. Surrender is like an abandonment that is accepted by the LL. Thus, the unexpired part of the tenancy merges with the LL’s reversion. LL must act to not accept an abandonment if he or she so chooses. If LL accepts, thus a surrender, then the actions are taken out of statute rendering it inapplicable. [what statute?]
D. What to do once tenant has abandoned the property.
1. First option is to do nothing and sue for unpaid rent, only about a dozen states still allow this.
2. Majority Rule: LL must make reasonable effort here to re-let the premises in order to mitigate D’s damages. The tenant must give LL notice of abandonment in order to put this duty upon him. LL is only acting as the tenant’s agent, tenant still liable for unpaid rent.
3. This is a new idea, a mix of the law. LL accepts the abandonment as a surrender but then still has the right to sue for unpaid rent. It must be clear that the tenant has repudiated the lease.
4. Let the tenant off of all liability and re-let for yourself. You would want to do this in a rising real estate market. Need to give notice to the tenant.
As stated in #2, there is now a majority rule of a duty to mitigate the damages in the U.S. LL must present evidence of reasonable efforts to re-let. This is more than just putting an ad in the paper. If LL has other vacant stock, he may be able to sue for lost profits if he in fact re-lets the tenant’s unit. The burden is on the LL since he is in the best position to present evidence on the matter. However, LL need not re-let for less money or with a less binding lease. This comes from the theory that leases are more a K than a property interest, K’s always have a duty to mitigate damages.
IX. Evictions, Actual and Otherwise-
A. Actual Eviction- when the LL actually evicts the tenant. Like locking him out. At that point, tenants liability for rent ceases and he can sue for any damages.
B. Constructive Eviction (the slumlord)- When the premises get so bad that they are unfit for habitation. Tenant can vacate after giving LL notice and opportunity to cure. Must be done within a reasonable time. Tenant is then relieved of rent. This could be anything from a noisy neighbor to broken water mains to a pest problem. It has to be substantial or permanent, permanent could be every time it rains. Anything that deprives the tenant of his quiet private enjoyment. This right is implied in both and written leases. However, the tenant can remain on the premises and then sue for damages; a difference in rental rate and what tenant actually received after the breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment.
Important to note that the tenant runs the risk of making a bad guess, a court could say there was no breach and therefore the tenant would still be liable for rent; in some commercial leases a tenant can get a declaratory judgment before vacating.
C. Implied Warranty of Habitability (new, 40 yrs. Old)- requires that rental property be maintained in a physical condition that provides safe, decent, and habitable housing for tenants. This only applies to residential premises and only really arises in low-income situations. LL promises to maintain this warranty for the term of the lease. This is implied in written and oral leases and cannot be negated, any terms to negate are void. TX you can partially waive. Some conditions are hot water, plumbing, appliances, broken windows; luxury items are not included. Normally a violation of any local codes will breach the warranty. Before vacating, LL must have a chance to cure the problem. Over 40 states have enacted this but mostly only for residential leases. TX has the implied warranty of suitability for commercial property.
Collett likes to test over what "reasonable" is, pg. 451. This differs for like handicapped people.
Tenant can vacate and sue, stay and sue, withhold rent until LL fixes, reform the K rental price, or fix themselves and deduct. Emotional distress and punitive damages may be available as well.
LL’s cannot evict a tenant in retaliation of reporting code violations or other issues. If found to be retaliatory, LL has burden proving it was not. This only applies to residential leases and tenant cannot be in delinquency at time of reporting. LL is then barred from vacating a tenant until retaliatory motive is dissipated, usually a year. Other actions that can be seen as retaliatory are rent increases or decreases in services.
D. Illegal Lease- if a lease had code violations from the beginning than it can be said to be illegal from the start and thus void or unenforceable in court. Not applicable if the violations occur after making of the lease. Does not apply to ordinances that are non-material, has to be major like a health issue. LL may not get rent but could get restitution under theory of unjust enrichment.
E. Frustration of Purpose- [need it?]
X. LL Premise Liability-
A. Tort Liability- Only normally imposed if the LL did not take reasonable steps to prevent known hazards. Ex. A set of stairs that causes one to trip, not adequate lighting in it.
B. Criminal Activity- absent an agreement to the contrary, in a majority of jurisdictions, LL not liable for criminal acts of third parties. However, he must take necessary precautions to avoid known security risks; lights, gates.