Spring Break
THREE PEACEFUL WARRIORS WIN AN IMPORTANT COURT RULING FOR TENANTS
Kathleen Harward, Director of Student Legal Services
Issue date: 4/9/07 Section: Opinion
We must not misunderstand this ruling. It certainly does not mean tenants can live in the landlord's property and use the fact of an illegal lease as an excuse to get out of paying rent for the time they lived there. When you receive value, you must give value. It also doesn't mean that all tenants in over-occupied situations can claim an unenforceable lease - only when you have clear evidence that the landlord intended to rent to more than three.
There are key questions that remain unanswered that await another case and another day. We don't know for sure whether the magistrate's reasoning would be the same in a case where there hasn't been an actual finding of violation and order to move out by the City. My opinion is the magistrate's rationale would still apply - the lease is illegal the minute the landlord intends to rent to more than three. Therefore, I believe a tenant who is facing only the threat of a City investigation rather than an actual one could give ten days notice and be done with the landlord (except for settling up for any property damage or past unpaid bills).
We also don't know whether the ruling would come out the same if the tenants in an over-occupied situation called in a complaint to the City on themselves in order to set up an exit plan for themselves. Again, my opinion is that the legal theory results in the same conclusion, but we don't know for sure.
Finally, the most important question that still remains unanswered is whether Larimer County judges will enforce the occupancy ordinance itself. That question must await a group of tenants (or landlords) who are willing to challenge the City when they are cited for violation. That battle may be a much harder one with a much less certain outcome.
There are key questions that remain unanswered that await another case and another day. We don't know for sure whether the magistrate's reasoning would be the same in a case where there hasn't been an actual finding of violation and order to move out by the City. My opinion is the magistrate's rationale would still apply - the lease is illegal the minute the landlord intends to rent to more than three. Therefore, I believe a tenant who is facing only the threat of a City investigation rather than an actual one could give ten days notice and be done with the landlord (except for settling up for any property damage or past unpaid bills).
We also don't know whether the ruling would come out the same if the tenants in an over-occupied situation called in a complaint to the City on themselves in order to set up an exit plan for themselves. Again, my opinion is that the legal theory results in the same conclusion, but we don't know for sure.
Finally, the most important question that still remains unanswered is whether Larimer County judges will enforce the occupancy ordinance itself. That question must await a group of tenants (or landlords) who are willing to challenge the City when they are cited for violation. That battle may be a much harder one with a much less certain outcome.
Be the first to comment on this story