Daily Development for Wednesday, May 6, 2010
by: Patrick A. Randolph, Jr.
Elmer F. Pierson Professor of Law
UMKC School of Law
Of Counsel: Husch Blackwell Sanders
Kansas City, Missouri
LANDLORD/TENANT; ROOMMATES; TERMINATION: Where a “roommate” arrangement is deemed a sublease, the primary tenant/sublessor is not legally entitled to eject sublessee from an apartment without a court order and at least 30 days notice.
Tiller v. Shuboney, 894 N.Y.S.2d 343 (N.Y. City Ct. 2009).
Plaintiff and Defendant, both college students, agreed to rent an apartment together. Only Defendant signed the approximately year long lease for the apartment, but the landlord was notified that Plaintiff was living in the apartment and Plaintiff verbally agreed to pay half the costs associated with renting the apartment. There was no written or verbal agreement regarding the obligations of either party in the event that one of the parties wanted to move out before the lease expired.
After months of living together, tensions increased amongst the two parties and relations deteriorated. Plaintiff left the apartment for winter break and upon her return to the apartment, she learned that Defendant had changed the locks. Defendant's mother answered the door and told Plaintiff that Plaintiff would have to move out of the apartment.
Plaintiff and Defendant later exchanged letters regarding the removal of Plaintiff's belongings from the apartment and in one of such letters Defendant threatened that if Plaintiff did not remove Plaintiff's belongings by a certain date, such belongings would be moved to the basement. When Plaintiff arrived at the apartment to pick up her belongings, she found all her belongings in the basement and she noticed that some items were damaged.
After being ousted from the apartment, Plaintiff moved back home with her mother and was unable to complete the rest of the academic semester because of the distance between her mother's home and the college.
Plaintiff sued Defendant for damages. According to the court, a contractual relationship existed between Plaintiff and Defendant and Plaintiff was the sublessee of Defendant. The court determined that: (i) as Defendant's sublessee, Plaintiff was entitled to the same legal protections from Defendant that Defendant was entitled to from her landlord and (ii) Defendant was also required to provide the same legal protections to Plaintiff that Defendant's landlord was required to provide to Defendant, which protections included the right to have a minimum of 30 days notice prior to an eviction and the right to not be ejected from an apartment without a court order. Since Defendant accepted Plaintiff's rent during the month in which she locked Plaintiff out of the apartment, did not give Plaintiff sufficient notice and did not obtain a court order of eviction the Court determined that Defendant was not legally entitled to oust Plaintiff from the apartment and Plaintiff was entitled t
Comment 1: The court commented that roommate arrangements can be characterized in a number of different ways, but its reasoning here did not leave much room for a characterization that would not at least require that there be notice and a court order before the roommate’s occupancy could be terminated.
Comment 2: The defendant in fact got off lightly, as the court recognized an unstated provision in the oral lease that the roommate’s occupancy rights were subject to termination - presumably by either party. Otherwise the Defendant would be liable for damages for Plaintiff’s loss of the balance of the lease term.
Comment 3: Another was this could be characterized and technically (to the editor) should have been characterized is a cotenancy. Both sides agreed to be liable for the rent for the term of the lease and, although only one party’s name was on the lease, that party could be viewed as the agent for the cotenancy. Terminating possession rights under such an arrangement would be more complicated, involving a suit for partition. Since the lease was only for a year and all arrangements were verbal, the court wisely set aside this technically preferred construction. If both parties were, say, operating a business, wouldn’t the court be more likely to use the same construction if all other facts were the same?
Comment 4: If the roommate was deemed a licensee, she might have been easier to evict, depending upon state law, as in some states licensees have no possession rights to assert. But where roommate had affirmatively agreed to pay half the right, construction of her rights as only a licensee would seem to be unfair. Such characterization, and truncation of rights, might be appropriate where a party to a romantic relationship has “moved in” with the leasing tenant and even shares some expenses, but the apparent deal is that occupancy and romance are coterminous.
Items reported here and in the ABA publications
are for general information purposes only and
should not be relied upon in the course of
representation or in the forming of decisions in
legal matters. The same is true of all
commentary provided by contributors to the DIRT
list. Accuracy of data and opinions expressed
are the sole responsibility of the DIRT editor or
individual contributors and are in no sense the
publication of the ABA.
Parties posting messages to DIRT are posting to a
source that is readily accessible by members of
the general public, and should take that fact
into account in evaluating confidentiality
DIRT is an internet discussion group for serious
real estate professionals. Message volume varies,
but commonly runs 5 to 15 messages per work day.
DIRT Developments are posted periodically, as supply dictates.
To subscribe, send the message
subscribe Dirt [your name]
To cancel your subscription, send the message
signoff DIRT to the address:
for information on other commands, send the message
Help to the listserv address.
DIRT has an alternate, more extensive coverage that includes not only
commercial and general real estate matters but also focuses specifically upon
residential real estate matters. Because real estate brokers generally find
this service more valuable, it is named “BrokerDIRT.” But residential
specialist attorneys, title insurers, lenders and others interested in the
residential market will want to subscribe to this alternative list. If you
subscribe to BrokerDIRT, it is not necessary also to subscribe to DIRT, as
BrokerDIRT carries all DIRT traffic in addition to the residential discussions.
To subscribe to BrokerDIRT, send the message
subscribe BrokerDIRT [your name]
To cancel your subscription to BrokerDIRT, send the message
signoff BrokerDIRT to the address:
DIRT is a service of the American Bar Association
Section on Real Property, Probate & Trust Law and
the University of Missouri, Kansas City, School
of Law. Daily Developments are copyrighted by
Patrick A. Randolph, Jr., Professor of Law, UMKC
School of Law, but Professor Randolph grants
permission for copying or distribution of Daily
Developments for educational purposes, including
professional continuing education, provided that
no charge is imposed for such distribution and
that appropriate credit is given to Professor
Randolph, any substitute reporters, DIRT, and its sponsors.
All DIRT Developments, and scores of other cases, arranged topically, are reported in hardcopy form in the ABA Quarterly Report. This is a limited subscription service, available to ABA Section Members, ACMA members and members of the NAR. Qualified subscribers may Subscribe to this Report ($30 for Two Years) by Sending a Check to Ms. Bunny Lee, ABA Section on Real Property, Trust & Estate Law, 321 N. Clark Street, Chicago, Il 60610. Contact Bunny Lee at (312) 988-5651, Leeb@staff.abanet.org ABA members also can access prior and current editions of this report on the ABA RPTE section website.
DIRT has a WebPage at: