Landlord does nothing !Michigan Law problem serious ?
Landlord does nothing !Michigan Law problem serious ?
I suspect you meant to say that in the case of retaliatory eviction, the
_landlord_ would lose? However, my own experience leads me to believe
that you may have inadvertently given the correct answer after all.
Disclaimers abound: I'm not a lawyer. My encounter with landlord-tenant
law was over thirteen years ago, and the law changes over time. The law
also varies from place to place, but my own experience did take place in
Mr. Siebert's own state of Michigan.
I was the landlord in an eviction proceeding in 1985. We had purchased
a house that was leased to a tenant, intending to use it as our own
residence after the lease expired. During the term of the lease, the
well on the property began to fail; the tenant complained and we
installed city water (willingly). The tenant witheld a portion of the
rent during that time, and we did not object to that.
When the lease expired, the tenant wouldn't move and we filed for
eviction. At the hearing, the tenant's attorney tried to claim
retaliatory eviction over the water incident. Our attorney pointed out
that according to the case law for the statute (MCLA 600.520?), the
retaliatory-eviction defense cannot be used in the case of a landlord
suing for possession of his property when a lease has expired.
In a month-to-month situation (and at this point, we're deeply into
I-am-not-a-lawyer territory), unless you have some sort of automatic
_right_ to renew, the landlord may be able to decide not to renew just
because he "doesn't feel like it."
Still proceeding under the assumption that we are applying Michigan
law, the retaliatory eviction statute in Michigan is MCL 600.5720.
The caselaw referred to is probably Frenchtown Villa v. Meadors, 324
N.W.2d 133 (Mich. Ct. App. 1982). In that case the tenants were
renting a mobile home space. They were originally on a month-to-month
tenancy but, under Michigan law, they compelled their landlord to give
them a 6-month written lease. He did, and at the end of the six
months he filed suit for possession of the space. The tenants claimed
that the landlord was retaliating for the compelled lease and raised
the defense available in the statute. The court, rather reluctantly
("We realize that our holding effects a severe limitation upon the
retaliatory eviction defense"), said that because of the language of
the statute, the defense was unavailable as the tenancy had naturally
terminated at the end of the 6-month period; therefore, the landlord
had not terminated anything but only refused to renew. "Because the
landlord has not independently caused the termination, his motivation
in seeking repossession or declining to renew the lease agreement is
irrelevant to the operation of MCL 600.5720; MSA 27A.5720." French
Villa, at 135-36.
On the other hand, it was Russ who queried how it would work with a
month-to-month *lease*. Assuming instead that it was a month-to-month
tenancy (no lease), which is much more common than a month-long lease
that keeps renewing, in Michigan the tenant *would* have the defense
available. In such a situation you have a tenancy at will and it is
terminable by either party, but only with notice. It does not
automatically terminate.
Finally, it should be noted that this is Michigan and Michigan's
statute. French Villa distinguished its findings from other courts in
other jurisdictions. An Arizona court, Van Buren Apartments v. Adams,
701 P.2d 583 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1984), commented: "It is clear that
Frenchtown Villa is based on the particular language used in the
Michigan statute."
So, as usual, the result is that you have to look at the law within
your state and the facts of the particular tenancy and eviction for an
answer.