July2007不動産法（カリフォルニア州司法試験）

カリフォルニア州司法試験の典型的な問題を検討していきます。問題文に参考和訳を付けています。

July2007不動産法

Larry leased in writing to Tanya a four-room office suite at a rent of $500 payable monthly in advance. The lease commenced on July 1, 2006. The lease required Larry to provide essential services to Tanya’s suite. The suite was located on the 12th floor of a new 20-story office building. ラリーは、タニヤに4部屋のオフィスを、毎月500ドルの前払い賃料で書面により賃貸した。リースは2006年7月1日に開始された。このリース契約では、ラリーはターニャのスイートルームに必要なサービスを提供することが義務付けられていた。そのスイートルームは、20階建ての新しいオフィスビルの12階にあった
In November Larry failed to provide essential services to Tanya’s suite on several occasions. Elevator service and running water were interrupted once; heating was interrupted twice; and electrical service was interrupted on three occasions. These services were interrupted for periods of time lasting from one day to one week. On December 5, the heat, electrical and running water services were interrupted and not restored until December 12. In each instance Tanya immediately complained to Larry, who told Tanya that he was aware of the problems and was doing all he could to repair them. 11月、ラリーはターニャのスイートルームに必要なサービスを何度も提供しなかった。エレベーターと水道は1回、暖房は2回、電気は3回中断された。これらのサービスは、1日から1週間の期間にわたって中断された。12月5日には暖房、電気、水道のサービスが停止し、12月12日まで復旧しなかった。いずれの場合も、ターニャはすぐにラリーに苦情を言い、ラリーはターニャに、問題は承知しているし、修理のためにできる限りのことをしていると言った
On December 12, Tanya orally told Larry that she was terminating her lease on February 28, 2007 because the constant interruptions of services made it impossible for her to conduct her business. She picked the February 28 termination date to give herself ample opportunity to locate alternative office space. 12月12日、ターニャはラリーに口頭で、絶え間ないサービスの中断でビジネスができなくなったので、2007年2月28日に賃貸契約を終了すると伝えた。タニヤが2月28日という契約終了日を選んだのは、別のオフィスを探すための十分な時間を確保するためだった
Tanya vacated the suite on February 28 even though between December 12 and February 28 there were no longer any problems with the leased premises. タニヤは、12月12日から2月28日までの間、賃貸物件に何の問題もなかったにもかかわらず、2月28日にオフィスを明け渡した
Larry did not attempt to re-let Tanya’s vacant suite until April 15. He found a tenant to lease the suite commencing on May 1 at a rent of $500 payable monthly in advance. On May 1, Larry brought suit against Tanya to recover rent for the months of March and April. ラリーは4月15日まで、ターニャの空室を再び貸そうとはしなかった。ラリーは、5月1日から毎月500ドルの前払い賃料でスイートルームを貸してくれるテナントを見つけた。5月1日、ラリーはターニャに対して、3月と4月分の家賃を回収するために訴訟を起こした
On what theory could Larry reasonably assert a claim to recover rent from Tanya for March and April and what defenses could Tanya reasonably assert against Larry’s claim for rent? Discuss. ラリーはどのような理論に基づいて、ターニャに対して3月と4月分の家賃を回収するための請求を合理的に主張することができ、ターニャはラリーの家賃請求に対してどのような抗弁を合理的に主張することができるか。

答案構成

I. Larry’s (L) claim against Tanya (T) to recover rent for March and April

Periodic Tenancy: A periodic tenancy is a tenancy that automatically renews at the end of each period unless one party gives a termination notice.
Termination: Notice of termination must be in writing and be given before the beginning of the intended last period of the periodic tenancy. One full month’s notice is required.
Duty to Pay Rent/Abandonment: A tenant has a duty to pay rent. If the tenant fails to pay rent, then the landlord can sue both for damages and to remove the tenant from the property. At common law, if the tenant unjustifiably abandoned the leasehold, then the landlord could treat the abandonment an offer of surrender and could accept by retaking the premises. Alternatively, the landlord may re-rent the premises on the tenant’s behalf and hold the tenant liable for any deficiency. Here, L will argue that T breached the lease agreement and owes him the unpaid rent from the time of her abandonment until the property was re-rented.

II. T’s defenses

Breach of Lease Terms: The lease terms (=covenants, LL expressly promised to provide essential services) are independent of all other covenants, and its violation does not allow T to refuse to pay rent.
Implied Warranty of Habitability: In residential leases, the landlord must maintain the property such that it is reasonably suited for residential use. Here, this is clearly not a residential lease.
Implied Warranty of Quiet Enjoyment: In every lease, Warranty of Quiet Enjoyment is implied. This is breached when the landlord interferes with the possession of the tenant. Any actions by the landlord that breach this covenant amount to an actual or constructive eviction of the tenant.
Constructive Eviction: If the landlord substantially interferes with the tenant’s use and enjoyment of the leasehold by breaching a duty to the tenant, the tenant’s obligation to pay rent is excused due to constructive eviction only if the tenant gives notice and vacates the property within a reasonable amount of time. Here, T will argue that L breached the implied warranty of quiet enjoyment. But, a court will likely find that L has a good claim that this was not a constructive eviction because the requirement to vacate within a reasonable amount of time was not met.
Failure to Mitigate: The majority rule today requires a LL to mitigate damages by trying to re-rent the premises. When a leasehold is abandoned, the landlord can re-rent the premises on the tenant’s behalf and hold the tenant liable for any deficiency. Here, even if T is liable for so of the rent on the arguments above, she will not be required to pay the full rental price.

（検討内容）

コンストラクティブエヴィクションに関連する典型問題であり、比較的易しい問題だったと思います。

約款独立の原則により契約条項違反が直ちに賃料支払停止を許すものではなく、コンストラクティブエヴィクションや、レジデンシャル物件の場合においてはimplied warranty of habitability違反を主張しなければならない、という点がポイントです。