3-2-17 (SAME DAYS AS LAST YEAR) PROPERTY A SLIDES 3-2-17 (SAME DAYS AS LAST YEAR)

On Course Page Later Today Updated Info Memo #3 with: Music to Accompany Tempest at the TEAPOT Beauty and the Beast Soundtrack (1991) DF Today in Room A110A On Course Page Later Today Updated Info Memo #3 with: NY Roommate Law Write-Up of Rev Probs 2H, 2J, 2L(b)

Review Problem 2J(S57-58) ACADIA: Arguments in Support of Trial Court Position (Remedies Not Implied in Comm’l Lease) BADLANDS: Arguments in Support of Appellate Court Majority Position (Both Remedies Implied as Default Rule) EVERGLADES: Arguments in Support of Concurring/ Dissenting Position = Non-Waivable Right Just for Minimum Habitability Not Available to Large Sophisticated Comm’l Tnts

Rev. Prob. 2J: Legal Background State common law says repair-and-deduct & rent- withholding remedies avail for breaches of minimal habitability in residential leases; hasn’t ruled on availability in other contexts. State Supreme Court grant of review: When, if ever, these remedies should be available for commercial tenants. Lowrr courts provide three possible positions (lots of other possibilities).

Rev. Prob. 2J: Task (On Exam) Q Presented: When, if ever, repair-and-deduct & rent-withholding should be available for commercial tenants. Lowrr courts provide three possible positions (lots of other possibilities). TASK: Write drafts of analysis sections of two opinions. For each: Choose one possible rule (doesn’t have to be one chosen by lower cts) Provide arguments supporting choice, including why better than at least some alternatives (especially your other choice). For sense of what these look like in writing, see posted CMA for 2F online, & for this problem later today. More examples soon.

Rev. Prob. 2J: Task (On Exam) Q Presented: When, if ever, repair-and-deduct & rent-withholding should be available for commercial tenants. Lowrr courts provide three possible positions (lots of other possibilities). PRIMARY FOCUS: Choose and defend two possible rules. Use of Facts/Record of Case Described in Problem: Some cases we’ve read: (Shack, JMB, Funk, Javins) lay out rules covering far more than facts in front of them. You can do this. Can use facts of problem as example or counterexample. Check specific instructions re application of rule to record. 2J says briefly apply your rules to allegations here. Primarily to help me understand what your rule is.

Rev. Prob. 2J: Exercise Today Q Presented: When, if ever, repair-and-deduct & rent-withholding should be available for commercial tenants. Lowrr courts provide three possible positions (lots of other possibilities). EXERCUSE TODAY: 3 sets of arguments on specific issues with panels taking positions I gave you. These could be part of a strong written answer depending on rules chosen. I’m just working w people on relevant panels to get out some arguments on each side. If you want to check on other/different arguments or have other Qs, first look at posted CMA and then e-mail me if you want further clarification.

Rev. Prob. 2J: Allegations Here Posture: Declaratory Judgment Action dismissed on pleadings. Have to treat T’s allegations as true. If you think you need more info after you set out rules, explain significance of missing info & remand to let lower cts handle. Background Allegations: T runs health spa business. Enters 12-year lease for two-story stand-alone building in a very large multi-building suburban mall owned/run by L Lease does not refer to rent-withholding or repair-and-deduct remedies Common Problems: Multi-Unit Building; T Sophistication; L Size.

Relevant Allegations (Think About Why I Include) Rev Prob 2J(1):Availability of Repair & Deduct as Remedy in Comm’l Lease Relevant Allegations (Think About Why I Include) Fountain next to building; lease provides that it is substantial/material part of leased premises [not common area] and that landlord will maintain it “in good working order” 10/13 Fountain stops working; needs replacement part. 10/13-3/14: Ldld repeatedly tells Tnt that they have ordered part but it’s out of stock. 3/14: Tnt finds part on internet and orders herself for $2300 retail price and had her staff install. Now claims repair & deduct rights.

Rev Prob 2J(1):Availability of Repair & Deduct as Remedy in Comm’l Lease ACADIA: Papiasvili; Burns; Mermell Only Available if Expressly Provided in Lease BADLANDS: Strong, Nugroho, Neuman As Default Rule

Relevant Allegations (Think About Why I Include) Rev Prob 2J(2):Availability of Rent Withholding as Remedy in Comm’l Lease for Violations of Minimal Habitability/Usability Relevant Allegations (Think About Why I Include) Lease unclear on responsibility for basic maintenance. T assumed L responsible for systems serving entire complex (plumbing, electricity, A/C) 12/13: water pressure on 2d floor of bldg. drops; T needs to carry water upstairs for services. L determines T didn’t cause problem. L tried repeatedly to fix until 3/14. Then L announced it had no responsibility to fix. T gave notice of intent to withhold rent until plumbing fixed.

(Assume Small Commercial Tenants) Rev Prob 2J(2):Availability of Rent Withholding as Remedy in Comm’l Lease for Violations of Minimal Habitability/Usability (Assume Small Commercial Tenants) EVERGLADES: Gray, LaFosse, Montano Non-Waivable Term ACADIA: Braun, Harreveld, Criddle Only Available if Expressly Provided in Lease

Rev Prob 2J(3):Availability of Both Remedies to Large Sophisticated Tenants (Can Assume T Here is Not) BADLANDS: Cordell, Delancy, Boughton Available As Default Rule EVERGLADES: Maryanoff; Sparhawk; Sirenord Not Available (presumably OK if explicitly in lease)

Tempest at the Teapot: Revised Assignments for Friday 3/3 OLYMPIC (from Argument A1): Two Possible Problems with 1/5 Notice: L Delivered It on Day Rent Was Due Listed Date Not 3 Days from Delivery (excluding Weekend): Original Version on S55 Says: “January 18, 2016” Amended Version I Gave You on Cpourse Page Says: “January 8, 2017” L did not file lawsuit until 1/11/17. Wha arguments do you see abut whether the 1/5 notice should be considered adequate despite the flaws?

Tempest at the Teapot: Revised Assignments for Friday 3/3 From Argument B2: Assume that the aerial violated Fl. Stat. §83.52, but that the May 2016 notice did not serve as a sufficient “right to cure” notice regarding the aerial. Can M evict F for the aerial immediately (without giving a right to cure notice) under §83.56(2)(a)? ACADIA: Arguments for Tenant BADLANDS: Arguments for Landlord

Tempest at the Teapot: Revised Assignments for Friday 3/3 SEQUOIA (from Argument A2 re Roaches): What Requirements Are Created re Extermination of Cockroaches by the Miami-Dade Housing Code? How Do Those Requirements Interact with the Provisions of the Lease and §§83.47 & 83.51 of the Florida Statute EVERGLADES (from Argument B1): Arguments re Whether the Aerial Violates §83.52 of the Florida Statute