- Which of the following is most accurate regarding the landlord's right to possession?
Answer: The landlord will prevail if he proves that his son genuinely moved into the apartment and that the landlord would have terminated the tenancy for that reason even absent the tenant's complaint.
Whenever you see a retaliatory-eviction question, think about shifting burdens: the tenant's protected complaint creates a presumption of retaliation, but the landlord can rebut it with an independent, legitimate reason. Here, the two-week gap between the tenant's housing complaint and the 30-day notice strongly suggests retaliation, but it is not conclusive. So the most accurate statement is that the landlord will prevail if he proves that his son genuinely moved into the apartment and that the landlord would have terminated the tenancy for that reason even absent the tenant's complaint. That is the classic rebuttal: a real, non-pretextual business or family reason that existed independently of the tenant's protected activity.
The first choice, saying the tenant prevails because notice within two weeks is retaliatory as a matter of law, mistakes a rebuttable presumption for an automatic outcome. The choice requiring the landlord to prove the tenant's complaint was made in bad faith or contained knowingly false statements is also wrong: retaliatory eviction focuses on the landlord's motive, not the tenant's good faith. And the final choice—that the tenant prevails unless the code violations were fully cured before the notice—confuses the separate issue of housing-code enforcement with possession; the landlord can still evict for a legitimate reason even if conditions remain uncured.
Study tip: whenever you see a protected act followed quickly by eviction, assume retaliation, then look for evidence that the landlord had an independent reason—that evidence wins.
- Which of the following is the tenant's best position regarding the rent obligation?
Answer: The landlord's lockout of the second floor was a partial actual eviction that excuses the tenant from paying the entire rent while the lockout continues, even though the tenant remains in possession of the ground floor.
When you see landlord-tenant remedies under traditional common-law rules, remember the doctrine of actual eviction. A landlord's physical interference with the tenant's possession—even if only a part—is not treated as merely a breach of a covenant. Because rent issues from the whole leased premises and cannot be apportioned, any actual eviction by the landlord suspends the tenant's obligation to pay rent entirely while the eviction continues.
Here, by changing the locks on the second-floor door and refusing a key, the landlord actually excluded the tenant from a portion of the demised premises. This is a partial actual eviction. Under common law, that partial eviction excuses the tenant from paying whole rent, not just rent for storage space—even though the tenant remains in possession of the ground floor. The tenant need not abandon the ground floor to raise this defense; he can remain and withhold rent until restored to possession of the second floorui.
As for the wrong choices: the claim that landlord's self-help "terminated the lease" misframes the remedy—self-help does not automatically cancel the lease; it leaves the lease in place whileberg suspends rent. The argument that the tenant must pay full rent because he continued using the ground floor ignores that partial actual eviction is a complete defense to rent at common law. Also tempting is the proposed "abated to two-thirds" solution, but traditional common-law does not apportion rent for partial eviction; it applies all-or-nothing rule: entire rent is suspended, not merely a percentage. On an exam, when landlord physically excludes tenant from any part of premises, think "partial actual eviction → rent suspended in full while exclusion lasts."
- Which of the following is the most accurate statement of the landlord's liability?
Answer: The landlord is liable if the criminal attack was foreseeable and the landlord failed to take reasonable precautions, such as improved lighting, in an area over which the landlord retained control.
When you see a landlord-tenant tort question involving criminal acts, focus on two pillars: control and foreseeability. Landlords are not insurers, but they owe a duty to protect tenants from foreseeable criminal acts in common areas they retain control over.
The correct statement is that the landlord is liable if the criminal attack was foreseeable and he failed to take reasonable precautions, such as improved lighting, in an area he retained control. Here, the landlord retained control over the rear corridor. The three prior robberies over 18 months, with police reports, made the risk of another attack highly foreseeable. His failure to improve the lighting was a failure to take reasonable precautions, so liability attaches if those elements are proven.
Now, address the wrong choices. The statement that a landlord is under no duty to protect tenants from third-party criminal acts even in common areas is too broad; that duty exists when the criminal act is foreseeable and the landlord has control. The choice claiming the robber's intentional act is a superseding cause that breaks causation is incorrect because intentional torts are not superseding when the risk of that type of act was foreseeable. Since prior robberies occurred, the risk was foreseeable, so the landlord's negligence remains a proximate cause. Finally, the choice limiting liability to robberies inside the tenant's apartment is wrong because landlords have a duty to maintain common areas—like corridors—even after tenants take possession, as they retain control over those areas.
Strategy tip: On the bar exam, when a landlord faces criminal acts, immediately check for (1) landlord's control over the area and (2) prior similar incidents known to the landlord. If both are present, liability is likely.
- Which of the following statements is most accurate?
Answer: The transfer was a sublease because the original tenant retained a reversionary interest in the premises, so the covenant against assignment was not violated, and the original tenant remains liable on the lease.
When you see a lease covenant against assignment, the critical distinction is whether the tenant transferred the entire remaining term or retained any interest. The phrase "less one day" is the key: by keeping that one day, the original tenant retained a reversionary interest. Therefore, the transfer was a sublease, not an assignment, so the covenant against assignment was not violated and the original tenant remains liable on the lease.
The transfer was not an assignment merely because it conveyed "substantially all" of the remaining interest; leasehold law requires the tenant to surrender the whole term, not almost the whole term. A retained reversion, even one day, makes it a sublease. And the landlord's acceptance of rent directly from the corporation did not release the original tenant—accepting rent from a subtenant creates no new contractual relationship with the subtenant and does not amount to a novation. The same is true of the claim that the landlord's conduct created a new landlord-tenant relationship releasing the original tenant; that would require the landlord's affirmative release or agreement, not mere rent acceptance. Finally, the statement that the corporation is liable only if it expressly assumed the lease misunderstands assignment liability: an assignee in possession is liable for rent through privity of estate, but here there was no assignment at all.
On exam day, watch for "less one day" or any retained slice of time—that is the classic signal that the transfer is a sublease and the original tenant stays liable.
- In a jurisdiction applying traditional landlord-tenant rules, which of the following is correct?
Answer: T, A, and B are all liable: T by privity of contract, A by the covenant of assumption, and B by privity of estate while in possession.
When you see a landlord-tenant question involving assignments, your first move is to map the two types of privity: privity of contract (which follows the original signing parties and anyone who expressly assumes) and privity of estate (which follows possession of the land). The landlord is suing for unpaid rent, so you need to identify who is in either type of privity. Here, T originally signed the lease, so T has privity of contract with the landlord—and an assignment never terminates that unless the landlord expressly releases T (which didn't happen). A expressly assumed the lease, meaning A stepped into T's shoes for contractual obligations, creating privity of contract with the landlord as well. B took possession without assuming, but B still has privity of estate with the landlord—and privity of estate makes B liable for rent while in possession, regardless of an assumption. Therefore, all three are liable: T by contract, A by assumption (contract), and B by estate. Now look at the wrong choices. The choice saying "Only T is liable" wrongly claims A's covenant ran only to T—in reality, an assumption runs to the landlord as a third-party beneficiary. The choice saying "Only A and B are liable" wrongly claims T was relieved; assignment does not terminate T's contractual duty. The choice saying "Only T and A are liable" wrongly claims B has no obligation—privity of estate imposes liability on B for rent while in possession. The key takeaway: assignment never erases the original tenant's contract liability, and possession alone creates estate liability. Watch for the distinction between assumption (contract) and possession (estate).
- Which of the following is correct?
Answer: The tenant may remove both the oven and the shelving as trade fixtures, provided the tenant repairs any damage to the premises caused by the removal.
When you see a fixture question, think: annexation, adaptation, and intent. But for tenants, a key exception exists—trade fixtures. A tenant can remove items installed for their business, even if bolted or screwed in, as long as removal doesn't cause substantial damage (or they repair it). Here, the tenant runs a bakery, so the oven and shelving are trade fixtures. The oven unbolts cleanly, and the shelving leaves holes that can be patched—that's repairable damage, not substantial. So the tenant may remove both, provided they fix the holes. That's exactly what the correct choice says: "may remove both the oven and the shelving as trade fixtures, provided the tenant repairs any damage." Now, the wrong answers. The choice claiming they "became fixtures when annexed" and that a tenant "may never remove" them ignores the trade fixture exception—annexation alone doesn't bar removal. The choice allowing the oven but forcing the shelving to remain because removal would "damage the premises" misapplies the rule; patching holes is minor repair, not the substantial injury that forfeits the fixture. Finally, the choice requiring "landlord's consent" because the oven was bolted to the floor overemphasizes physical attachment; the tenant's business intent controls, and consent isn't needed if they repair. Your strategy: spot the "trade fixture" pattern—business tenant + removable without substantial damage. If the damage is patchable, the tenant wins.
- Which of the following is the tenant's best argument in response to the landlord's suit?
Answer: The landlord breached the implied warranty of habitability, entitling the tenant to an abatement of rent measured by the difference between the apartment's fair rental value as warranted and its fair rental value with the defective heating.
This question tests landlord-tenant remedies when a residential landlord fails to provide essential heat. In a jurisdiction recognizing the implied warranty of habitability, a landlord's duty to maintain fit premises is implied by law, and a breach entitles the tenant to an abatement of rent measured by the difference between the fair rental value as warranted and the fair rental value with the defective condition. Here the furnace failed in January, the tenant gave notice, and the landlord did nothing for six weeks—so the warranty was breached. The tenant's best argument is therefore rent abatement, not a complete escape from rent.
The constructive eviction argument falls short because a tenant claiming constructive eviction must actually abandon the premises within a reasonable time; by staying and using space heaters, the tenant did not relinquish possession, so cannot claim he owes no rent entirely. Similarly, the argument that the landlord's failure was a material breach relieving the tenant of rent until heat is restored is overbroad: the implied warranty remedy is an abatement to the defective property's fair rental value, not a full suspension of rent. And the argument that continued possession did not waive the defect, so the tenant must pay full rent but can recover heater costs, gets the waiver point right but the remedy wrong—the tenant need not pay the full rent because abatement is available. Remember: when a habitability defect exists and the tenant remains in possession, think "abatement," not "no rent."
- What is the original tenant's maximum liability to the landlord?
Answer: $5,200, because the original tenant owes the $200 monthly difference for the six months the apartment was re-let plus the full $2,000 monthly rent for the final two months the landlord could not re-let.
When a tenant abandons before the lease ends, the majority rule requires the landlord to make reasonable efforts to re-let — this is the duty to mitigate. The tenant remains liable for any unpaid rent, but the landlord's re-letting does not automatically accept surrender. Here, the landlord mitigated by replacing the tenant for six months, then could not find anyone for the last two.
Your maximum liability is $5,200. For the six months the replacement paid $1,800 instead of your $2,000, you owe the $200 monthly shortfall — that's $1,200. For the final two months, the apartment sat vacant despite reasonable efforts, so you owe the full $2,000 each month — another $4,000. Total: $5,200.
Now the traps. The $0 answer claims re-letting accepted surrender — that confuses mitigation with surrender; a landlord can re-let to protect the tenant's account without terminating the lease. The $1,600 answer, the $200 difference for all eight months, ignores that the vacant two months carry the entire rent, not just a gap. The $16,000 answer, full eight months, reflects the old common-law rule — but the majority rule requires mitigation, so the landlord cannot recover rent the tenant could have avoided.
Study tip: On landlord-tenant questions, first identify whether the jurisdiction follows the majority rule (mitigation) or minority (no duty). Then calculate damages by splitting the remaining term into periods actually re-let and periods still vacant.
- What is the tenant's liability for the three months?
Answer: $3,300, the fair rental value of the apartment in its defective condition during the three months the tenant remained in possession without paying rent.
Whenever you see an implied warranty of habitability question, remember two things: the warranty cannot be waived, and the tenant's remedy is usually rent abatement—not total freedom from rent. Here, the lease waiver is invalid, so the landlord is not entitled to the full $5,400.
The tenant remained in possession, so the proper measure is the difference between the fair rental value as warranted and the fair rental value with the defects: $1,800 − $1,100 = $700 per month. Over three months, the tenant's damages are $2,100. But the landlord sued for unpaid rent, so the tenant must still pay the rent owed minus that offset: $5,400 − $2,100 = $3,300. That equals the defective apartment's fair rental value of $1,100 per month for three months, which is the tenant's liability.
"$0” is wrong because the breach reduces rent, it does not eliminate the obligation to pay for actual occupancy. “$2,100" is wrong because that is the amount of the abatement/damages, not the final amount owed after applying it to the unpaid rent. "$5,400" is wrong because it treats the waiver as enforceable; implied warranty of habitability clauses cannot be waived, and knowledge of the defects does not resurrect the waiver.
On exam day, when rent is withheld, calculate the abatement first, then subtract it from the unpaid rent. The net amount is what the tenant owes, not the abatement itself.
- In a majority jurisdiction, which of the following is correct?
Answer: The landlord is liable for damages because the majority rule requires the landlord to put the new tenant into actual possession of the premises at the beginning of the term.
Whenever you see a landlord-tenant question involving a holdover tenant at the start of a new lease, the key issue is the delivery of possession. The common law is split: the majority (English) rule requires the landlord to put the new tenant into actual possession, while the minority (American) rule only requires giving the legal right to possession. Here, the landlord is liable for damages because the majority rule demands actual possession. Since the prior tenant's holdover prevented the new tenant from moving in on September 1, the landlord breached the duty to deliver possession, making him responsible for the new tenant's resulting costs, like the two months of alternative lodging.
Now consider the distractors. The first option, that the landlord is not liable because he gave the legal right to possession and the remedy is against the holdover, describes the minority (American) rule—a common trap if you confuse which rule is the majority. The second option, that the landlord is not liable if he made reasonable efforts to evict, is wrong because the majority rule imposes strict liability on the landlord for a holdover; fault or diligence is irrelevant. The fourth option, that the landlord is only liable for a return of rent paid in advance, misstates the remedy—the tenant can recover consequential damages (like lodging costs), and the doctrine of frustration of purpose does not apply to a failure to deliver possession; it applies to unforeseen events destroying the lease's purpose.
For the bar, memorize the labels: English rule (majority) = actual possession; American rule (minority) = legal right. When you see a holdover, immediately ask which rule the jurisdiction follows.
- Which of the following is the tenant's best argument in a suit against the landlord?
Answer: The landlord's acceptance of rent created a new tenancy, and the landlord's lockout without judicial process was an unlawful self-help eviction for which the tenant may recover damages.
Whenever you see a landlord-tenant holdover question, focus on what the landlord's acceptance of rent does. At common law, when a tenant holds over and the landlord accepts rent, the law treats the parties as having created a new tenancy—usually periodic, with the period measured by how rent was tendered. Here,accepting monthly rent for two months created a month-to-month tenancy. That matters because a tenant under a new tenancy cannot be thrown out without judicial process.
The tenant's best argument is that the landlord's acceptance of rent created a new tenancy,and the lockout without court proceedings was an unlawful self-help eviction. A tenant may recover damages for wrongful eviction, including harm to person or property. Returning the next month's rent and demanding possession did not lawfully terminate the new tenancy; the landlord still had to give proper notice and, if necessary, use judicial eviction proceedings.
The choice saying the acceptance created a tenancy at will that could be terminated at any time gets the doctrine wrong: accepting monthly rent creates a periodic tenancy,not a tenancy at will. And even at will,self-help lockout is prohibited—judicial process is required. The choice claiming the landlord lawfully terminated by returning rent and demanding possession,leaving the tenant at sufferance,also fails: returning rent without proper notice does not terminate a periodic tenancy,and continued refusal does not make removal lawful. Finally,the choice arguing acceptance did not create a new tenancy because the original lease expired,so the tenant was only at sufferance and self-help was privileged,is doubly wrong—rent acceptance did create a new tenancy,and self-help is never a privileged substitute for a court order.Come to remember: landlord acceptance of holdover rent = new tenancy; landlord lockout = unlawful self-help,period.
- Which of the following is most accurate?
Answer: The tenant is a tenant at sufferance, and the landlord may elect either to evict the tenant or to hold it to a new tenancy; the landlord's delay and demand for increased rent did not constitute an election to continue the tenancy.
A question about a holdover tenant tests one central rule: after a lease expires and the tenant stays, the landlord may either treat the tenant as a trespasser to be evicted or elect to hold the tenant to a new tenancy. Mere delay in acting does not equal an election.
Here, because the tenant remained after June 30 without the landlord's consent, it became a tenant at sufferance. The landlord's July 21 letter demanding vacatur or 150% rent was not an election to continue the tenancy; it was an attempt to set conditions while deciding between eviction and a new tenancy. Therefore, the correct choice is that the tenant is a tenant at sufferance and the landlord may elect either to evict or to hold it to a new tenancy.
The wrong choices each distort this rule. The statement that delay created a month-to-month tenancy is wrong because delay alone is not an election, and a holdover tenancy need not be month-to-month. Calling the tenant a trespasser and permitting reasonable force is wrong because a tenant at sufferance is not a trespasser, and a landlord must use judicial eviction, not self-help. The claim that the 150% demand was an offer to renew that the tenant accepted by staying is also wrong: a demand for increased rent is not a renewal offer, and the tenant expressly rejected it, so no new tenancy was formed.
Study tip: on holdover questions, ask whether the landlord made an affirmative election—such as accepting rent or filing suit—and remember that delay alone never creates a new tenancy.
