← Property Export Options Alphabetize Word-Def Delimiter Tab Comma Custom Def-Word Delimiter New Line Semicolon Custom Data Copy and paste the text below. It is read-only. Select All Crowther v. Mower • When a joint tenant makes a bona fide conveyance of his interest in property to a third party, the joint tenancy is converted to ownership by tenancy in common. Estate of Philips v. Nyhus • Mere execution of an earnest money agreement for the sale of real property held in joint tenancy with right of survivorship does not sever the joint tenancy or the right of survivorship. Albro v. Allen • Where the interest held is a joint life estate with dual contingent remainders, the right of survivorship cannot be affected by the conveyance of the life estate. Porter v. Porter • A divorce decree rendering possession of property in one spouse does not terminate the joint tenancy with the right of survivorship. Brant v. Hargrove • The execution of a deed of trust by one joint tenant does not sever or terminate the joint tenancy arrangement. Esteves v. Esteves • When a tenant in common has enjoyed sole occupancy of the property and seeks operating and maintenance costs from the co-tenant who has not lived on the property, equity dictates that the sole possessor allow for corresponding credit for the value of sole occupancy. Carr v. Deking • A co-tenant may lawfully lease his own interest in the common property to another without the consent of the other tenant and without joining in the lease. Massey v. Prothero • A co-tenant pays encumbrances for the benefit of all co-tenants and, thus, cannot extinguish their interest by purchasing the property at a tax sale. Ark Land Company v. Harper • In a partition proceeding in which a party opposes the sale of property, the economic value of the property is not the exclusive test for deciding whether to partition in kind or by sale. Coraccio v. Lowell Five Cents Savings Bank • Spouses may act alone in mortgaging or making an effective conveyance of their interest in property held by the entirety. In re Sinnreich • A debtor does not have individualized ownership rights with respect to property he holds in tenancy by the entirety with his non-debtor wife, and which is exempted from his bankruptcy estate. Lakatos v. Estate of Billotti • When one joint tenant murders his co-tenant, the property will pass as though the murderer predeceased the victim. Morton & Furbish Agency • A seasonal rental of a cottage creates a license to use the premises, and not a landlord and tenant relationship, and the licensor of the property therefore has a duty of reasonable care to the licensee. David Properties, Inc. v. Selk • A landlord may bind a tenant to a rental payment when the tenant holds the property over after the leasehold expires. Adrian v. Rabinowitz • The covenant of quiet enjoyment implies that the lessor must give actual, exclusive possession of the premises to the lessee on the first day of the term of the lease. Mercury Investment Co. v. F.W. Woolworth Co. • Where a lease is written in plain, clear and unambiguous language, judicial construction of implied covenants is improper. Service Oil Co. v. White • When a lessor has knowledge of a defect in property that the lessee could not reasonably discover upon inspection or through reasonable diligence, the lessor's failure to disclose the existence of the defect constitutes actionable fraudulent concealment. Hadian v. Schwartz • A general repair clause in a lease does not necessarily obligate a lessee to pay for repairs ordered by governmental authority. Barash v. Pennsylvania Terminal Real Estate Corp. • A tenant cannot establish an actual eviction unless he is physically expelled or excluded from the premises, and he cannot claim to have been constructively evicted unless he has completely abandoned possession. Hilder v. St. Peter • An implied warranty of habitability exists in residential leases. Detling v. Edelbrock • A landlord impliedly warrants that the residential property is habitable and fit for living at the inception of the lease and that it will remain so during the entire term. Building Monitoring Systems, Inc. v. Paxton • Retaliatory eviction is an affirmative defense to an unlawful detainer action. Garcia v. Thong • Landlords must provide a written, itemized statement of damages to a departed tenant or forfeit all claims to the damage deposit. Borders v. Rosenberry • A landlord is not liable per se for injuries resulting from a defective condition on leased premises simply because he had knowledge of the condition. Doe v. Dominion Bank of Washington • A commercial landlord must exercise reasonable care to protect tenants from foreseeable criminal acts of third parties occurring in the areas of the building that are under the landlord's control. Pennell v. City of San Jose • An ordinance allowing a tenant's hardship to be considered in determining a rent increase is constitutional. American Community Stores Corp. v. Newman • The right of reentry is a reversionary interest that qualifies a transfer of rights under a lease as a sublease, not an assignment. Kendall v. Ernest Pestana, Inc. • Absent contractual language to the contrary, a lessor may not arbitrarily withhold consent to an assignment. Davidson v. Kenney • Requirements for an unlawful detainer action must be strictly construed and, therefore, a termination notice is ineffective and does not terminate the tenancy on any date, unless it allows the tenant thirty days after the end of the month in which notice is given to vacate the premises. Lindsey v. Normet • There is no federal constitutional requirement that a state provide for a defense to a suit for rent based on a lack of habitability. Reldresal v Bolgolam • For the purposes of the present (hypothetical) case, a lease is not void at its inception if the parties' intended use of the property was in violation of a zoning ordinance, because it is assumed that the parties planned to obtain a variance. Austin Hill Country Realty, Inc. v. Palisades Plaza, Inc. • (1) A landlord has a duty to make reasonable efforts to mitigate damages when a tenant defaults on a lease and the landlord sues for anticipatory repudiation • (2) The landlord's duty to mitigate requires the landlord to use objectively reasonable efforts to fill the premises when the tenant vacates in breach of the lease. • (3) When exercising the option to maintain the lease in effect and sue for rent as it becomes due following the tenant's breach and abandonment, the landlord has a duty to mitigate only if o (a) the landlord actually reenters, or o (b) the lease allows the landlord to reenter the premises without accepting surrender, forfeiting the lease, or being construed as evicting the tenant. Abbott v. Bob's U-Drive • When a person other than the lessee possesses leased premises and pays rent to the landlord, it is presumed that the lease has been assigned to him and that he has assumed the obligation of performing all covenants which run with the land. Gerber v. Pecht • Unless the agreement between the assignee and original landlord materially alters original lease terms, the lessee's covenant to pay rent remains via privity of contract. Tippecanoe Associates II, LLC v. Kimco Lafayette 671, Inc. • Restrictive covenants running with land are not always unenforceable if they diminish value to the landowner. Runyon v. Paley • In order to enforce a restrictive covenant on the theory of equitable servitude, it must be shown o (1) that the covenant touches and concerns the land, o (2) that the original covenanting parties intended the covenant to bind the person against whom enforcement is sought and to benefit the person seeking to enforce the covenant, and o (3) notice of the covenant is contained in a chain of title instrument. Midsouth Golf, LLC v. Fairfield Harbourside Condominium Ass'n, Inc. • A restrictive covenant calling for payment to a homeowners association of a recreational amenities charge is not directly connected to real property of the homeowners where the amenities are licensed for use by the homeowners. Perry v. Davis • An agreement between parties concerning between parties concerning the use of land that is recorded with the registry of deeds may be enforceable against future owners of the land under the doctrine of equitable servitude, even if the agreement does not meet the requirements of a covenant running with the land. Sanborn v. McLean • Where some parcels of land from a common development scheme are conveyed with a restriction of use to benefit other parcels, the other parcels are also restricted, even if the restriction is not included in the individual deed. Traweek v. Lincoln • (1) Ambiguities in a covenant will be resolved against the party seeking enforcement, and its language will not be extended by implication or be read to include anything not plainly prohibited. • (2) A covenant will be enforced only if the intent of the covenant is clear and unambiguous. Pietrowski v. Dufrane • A restrictive covenant can be enforced in cases of substantial violation even when a technical violation of the same covenant has not been enforced. Millbrook Hunt, Inc. v. Smith • An agreement is an easement if the parties sufficiently expressed their intent to reserve a permanent right to the land. Ricenbaw v. Kraus • A mere license, whether by deed or by parol, is revocable at pleasure, except where the license is executed or, where by reason of expenditures by the licensee on the strength of the license, it would be inequitable to permit the licensor to revoke the license. Berg v. Ting • (1) For an easement to conform to the statute of frauds, the grant must contain a sufficient description of the land or reference an existing instrument that contains such a description. • (2) Unless the consideration given for an easement reveals the character or terms of a contract, the consideration alone is insufficient evidence of part performance to take the grant of the easement out of the statute of frauds. Boyd v. BellSouth Telephone Telegraph Co., Inc. • (1) a party claiming to be benifitted by an easement by necessity must who more than convenience. • (2) An easement by pre-existing use exists where o (a) the dominant and servient tracts of land originated from a common grantor, o (b) the use was in continuous, and necessary for enjoyment of the dominant tract. Hurlocker v. Medina • Unity of title is sufficient to support an easement by necessity if the grantor owns both the dominant and servient parcels at the time of severance. Drake v. Smersh • A prescriptive easement exists where there is use of the servient land that is o (1) open and notorious, o (2) over a uniform route, o (3) continuous and uninterrupted for 10 years, o (4) adverse to the owner of the land sought to be subjected, and o (5) with the knowledge of such owner at a time when he was able in law to assert and enforce his rights. Shanks v. Floom • To establish the hostile use required for a prescriptive, it is not necessary to show a dispute or ill will, rather it is sufficient if the use is inconsistent with the rights of the title owner and not subordinate or subservient to those rights. Interior Trails Preservation Coalition v. Swope • A corporate organization can maintain an action for a public prescriptive easement even though the organization has not been in existence long enough to engage in the ten-year period of continuous use needed to establish a prescriptive easement. Brown v. Voss • If an easement is appurtenant to a particular parcel, any extension thereof to other parcels is a misuse of the easement; however, where there is no increased burden on the servient estate, a court may, in its discretion, permit the overuse to continue unabated Cameron v. Barton • In ascertaining whether additional or different uses of an easement appurtenant which was created by conveyance are permitted, it is assumed that the parties to the conveyance contemplated a normal development of the use of the dominant tenement. Glenn v. Poole • An easement is not overburdened by the use of different vehicles from those used to establish it or by improvements to the road by the holder. Pasadena v. California-Michigan Land & Water Co. • The intention to convey and exclusive easement will never be imputed to the owner of a servient estate in the absence of a clear indication of such intention, and the mere grant of an unrestricted easement, not specifically defined as to the burden imposed on the servient estate, entitles the owner to make any use of the land that does not unreasonably interfere with the easement. M.P.M. Builders, LLC v. Dwyer • Within certain general limits, a landowner can unilaterally relocate an easement on its property. Simone v. Heidelberg • An easement may be re-recreated in a subsequent conveyance only if there is language evincing the encumbrance in a deed recorded in the servient estate's chain of title. Hickerson v. Bender • (1) Acquiescence to significant obstruction, coupled with lengthy nonuse, is sufficient to show abandonment of an easement for passage, • (2) Property improvements that block the use of an easement are "open, notorious, and hostile," thus extinguishing the easement by adverse possession, if the obstructions are visible to anyone seeking to exercise their rights in the easement. Glosemeyer v. United States • In cases involving railroad easements, if upon the railroad's abandonment the easement would be extinguished and the owner would have a fee simple interest in the formerly burdened land, the federal government effects a taking if it transfers the land for use as a recreational trail.