The parties' adherence to the fundamentals of US contractual law is what determines the outcome of their encounters as landlord and tenant. Both the owner and the tenant have obligations that they must fulfill. The legislation also safeguards the rights of both landlords and tenants. (Stewart, Warner & Portman, 2016). The court dispute between Larry and Rogers serves as a clear illustration of the disagreements that could obstruct the landlord-tenant relationship. First, the landlord has a number of privileges and obligations. The price can be set at market rate by the landlord. Principally, he has the right to determine the rates of the rent depending on the market rates and the nature of the property. Overcharging the tenant provides an illegal activity according to the law. In turn, it is the Rogers’ responsibility to ensure that he pays his rent within the time allocated. The landlord has the right to be advised of the required repairs (McElhaney, 1969). Essentially, in this case, Larry had the right to be informed of the leak while rogers had the responsibility of ensuring that he informed Larry of the need for repair before undertaking any repairs. Rogers had the responsibility of ensuring that all information which affects the property is passed on to the landlord. Each and every element should be reported immediately by the Additionally, the tenant has the right to all the relevant information that pertains to the properties that they are about to rent. Alternatively, the tenant has the responsibility of taking care of the premises that they occupy (McElhaney, 1969). Thus, Rogers had the duty of maintaining the sanitation of rented property. The tenant on the other hand has the responsibility of repairing damages that may hinder the tenant’s ability to enjoy his tenancy as a resident in the given community. The tenant is further guaranteed freedom from harassment by the landlord by the law. Thus, each and every action engaged by the landlord has to be a reflection of the legal premises as enshrined in the constitution. Principally, the tenant-landlord laws are intended to mitigate the occurrences of conflict between the tenant and the landlord by ensuring that each of them is protected against abuse by the other party.
II
Based on the premises of the case between the Larry and Roger, the landlord is responsible for the mitigation of damages. To begin with, he did not extend Roger adequate information on the degree of repair that was required to ensure the full closure of the leak on the roof. Additionally, the leak was not a result of neglect by the tenants. Rogers was an exemplary tenant and had followed every legal channel possible to address the issue and ensure the repair of the leaking roof. Since the tenant had informed the landlord, and the landlord, Larry, had committed to the repair of the involved problematic roof, any damages of properties internally and belonging to the tenant should be compensated by the landlord (Rabin, 1984). Alternatively, the tenant is responsible for the mitigation of damages resulting from deliberate and malicious destruction of the objects in the rented residence. In this case, Rogers should have forwarded the case to the relevant authorities rather than taking matters into his own hands and inflicting damage on the property. Principally, the tenant-landlord law provides a manual through which conflicts between the landlord and the tenant can be solved amicably in the courts of law. The damages would have been averted if the landlord had undertaken to repair the damaged roof. Additionally, the baseball damage bat damage might have been prevented if the landlord had extended courtesy to his exemplary tenant by addressing them respectfully and engaging them within the premises of the law. Similarly, the landlord should have committed themselves to the promotion of the interests of his landlord by instituting a quick response before the rains had increased in intensity.
III
To evict Rogers, Larry will have to predicate his decision on legal grounds (Stewart, Warner & Portman, 2016). It is illegal to evict a tenant when the decision is not enshrined in the landlord-tenant laws. For instance, in the US, the landlord is barred from directly evicting the tenant without the consent of the court of law. Some of the processes involved in the eviction of the tenant include the termination of the lease contract with proper notice given at least a month before the eviction. In the event that the tenant fails to comply to the wishes of the instructions in the notice, the landlord is directed by the law to seek the intervention of the law in a local court of law (Stewart, Warner & Portman, 2016). In the court of law, both the tenant and the landlord will be expected to air their grievances. They will inform the courts of their stances on the matter and the reasons behind the same. In the event that the landlord wins the plea, the landlord will be expected to meet with the sheriff of the town to arrange the eviction of the respondent. Lastly, the landlord and the sheriff will arrange the day of the eviction, meet on such a day and evict the tenant after which the landlord will be allowed to secure back his property by locking it up.
Principally, there are two main legal grounds for the repossession of rented property. These include the mandatory grounds for possession and the discretionary grounds for possession. The former demands that the tenant is fully informed of the initiative to be undertaken while the latter allows a deviation (McElhaney, 1969). To begin with, rented property can be re-acquired if the tenant fails to meet their rent obligations. This does not apply to this case since rogers was an exemplary tenant who paid his $800 rent in good time and within the agreed time limits. Nonetheless, the payment of the rent is subject to the landlord’s commitment to the renovation and creation of a hospitable setting in the given property. A tenant is allowed to overlook their payments if they feel that the landlord failed to provide a habitable setting. In the case of Rogers, Larry would be subject to a legal suit if Rogers refused to pay his rent. The landlord had refused to repaired the leaking roof and the action had in turn inspired the damages of his properties. Given that is the responsibility of the landlord to ensure that repairs are done on the major damages on the house, that had not been caused by the tenant, he would not be allowed to evict Rogers on the grounds of rent non-payment if Rogers chose to withhold the rent.
Alternatively, the landlord is allowed the freedom to evict the tenant if the tenant violates the lease. Principally, the law requires commitment to the legal basis set by the landlord-tenant contract by both parties. In throwing the baseball bat against the wall and causing damages on the wall and the socket, Rogers set himself up for eviction given that the lease clearly determined that there should not be willful damages to the property occupied by the tenant (McElhaney, 1969). Larry can use this argument to request the court’s approval in dismissing Rogers. Indeed, in the event that he felt his concerns were being deliberately neglected, Rogers should have sought the intervention of the court. The court would have then ordered the landlord to oversee the repair of the leaked roof regardless of the landlord’s reservations. This element constitutes eviction as a result of property damage. Unintentional or intentional damaging of the property that one is housed in provides a succinct justification for the eviction of the involved individual. Alternatively, when the tenant engages in drug abuse, they are likely to be evicted from their settings and the landlord is empowered to oversee the action (Stewart, Warner & Portman, 2016. However, this determinant is not relevant to the Larry-Rogers cases since Rogers was an exemplary tenant. Lastly, the landlord is allowed the power to evict their tenant upon the expiration of the lease. If the tenant continues to occupy the property long after the secession of the landlord-tenant relationship through the employ of a notice given in good time, the landlord is empowered by the court of law to evict the subject individual. Additionally, if the length agreements indicated in the lease have matured, it is the duty and right of the landlord to secure back his property from the subject tenant.
IV
Indeed, Rogers has a legal obligation to pay for the damages caused by his actions. Firstly, his action is a breach of the landlord-tenant contract which commits Rogers to the protection of the property that they have rented (McElhaney, 1969). By acting in anger and in turn destroying the wall, Rogers engaged in the willful destruction of the property which set him up for eviction by Larry. In a court of law, Larry can argue that the respondent should have solicited the intervention of the courts if they felt that their concerns were being ignored. Willful or unintentional damage of property cannot be justified in a court of law since it is a blatant negation of the responsibility of care by the tenant as is enshrined in the landlord-tenant agreement.
Alternatively, Larry would be liable for the direct damages of Roger’s damaged furniture, clothing and thee precious family items. The liability borne by Larry is a consequence of his deliberate choice to ignore the need to repair the leaked roof (Rabin, 1984). Since he was informed before the rains had started, he should have committed to the repair of the roof long before the rains had begun. Had he covered the roof, then Roger’s properties would not have been destroyed by the rain seeping through the leaked roof. Direct damages on the tenant’s property resulting from the landlord’s inability to repair the damaged segments of the property provides a legal ground that can be used by the tenant to institute charges against the landlord in a court of law. In the case, both the landlord and tenant were liable for damages.
References
McElhaney, J. W. (1969). Retalatory Evictions: Landlords, Tenants and Law Reforms. Maryland Law Review, 29(3), 193-226.
Rabin, E. H. (1984). Revolution in Residential Landlord-Tenant Law: Causes and Consequences. Cornell Law Review, 69(3), 519-583.
Stewart, M., Warner, R., & Portman, J. (2016). Every Landlord’s Legal Guide. CA: NOLO.
