New Jersey Court Answers The Burning Question: Can I Sue The Owner Of An Abandoned Church If I Slip And Fall On The Sidewalk Outside The Church?

by: Peter J. Gallagher (@pjsgallagher) (LinkedIn)

The facts and legal issues in sidewalk slip and fall cases sometimes read like they are pulled from law school final exams. In New Jersey, the baseline legal rule is clear — owners of commercial properties generally have a duty to maintain, in reasonably good condition, the sidewalks abutting their property, while owners of residential properties do not. But does a property owner have a duty to maintain its sidewalks when:

the property is both residential and commercial, like a multi-family home where one unit is owner occupied and the others are rented (click here for more on that, but the short answer is that it depends on whether the property is primarily residential or primarily commercial ); or
the plaintiff is a tenant and sues the landlord after slipping on a sidewalk outside the rental property (click here for more on that, but usually, yes); or
the property is a commercial property, final judgment of foreclosure has been entered in favor of the lender, but no sheriff's sale has been scheduled (click here for more on that, but if the lender can be considered a mortgagee in possession, then yes); or
the property is owned by a condominium or common-interest community (click here for more, but generally, yes if it's a private sidewalk within the condominium, no if it's a public sidewalk abutting the condominium); or
the property is residential and the fall is caused by sweetgum spikey seed pods that fell from a tree on the defendant's property (click here, but, no).

And now one more can be added to the list thanks to the Appellate Division's decision is Ellis v. Hilton United Methodist Church, where the question presented was whether "sidewalk liability applies to an owner of a vacant church."

Continue reading “New Jersey Court Answers The Burning Question: Can I Sue The Owner Of An Abandoned Church If I Slip And Fall On The Sidewalk Outside The Church?” →

Renting Our Way To A Housing Recovery?

by: Peter J. Gallagher

News about a housing recovery usually focuses on home sales, but Bloomberg ran a story this week, "U.S. Can Rent Its Way To A Housing Recovery" (h/t/ Land Use Prof Blog) that suggests that this focus may be off. The author suggests that the Obama Administration should allow a tax write-off for investors who buy empty properties and rent them out. The author claims this would help with two of the biggest problems with the housing market – the large amount of owner-occupied houses on the markets, which pushes prices down, and the millions of homes with negative equity: “Dealing with excess inventory by shifting vacant properties into the rental market would help to stabilize prices and thereby mitigate, to some degree, the negative-equity issue — although additional action would also be warranted to attack such ‘underwater’ situations." The ideas expressed in the article are obviously not without controversy, however, as even a cursory glance at the comments posted about the article make clear.

You Got A Better Idea?!? Government Opens Suggestion Box For Ideas On How To Rent Out Foreclosed Properties

by: Peter J. Gallagher

The New York Times is reporting that the government is soliciting ideas for turning its glut of vacant, foreclosed houses into rental units that could be managed by private parties or sold in bulk ("U.S. Seeks Ideas On Renting Out Foreclosed Property"). The goal of the program would be to "stabilize neighborhoods where large supplies of empty, foreclosed properties have hurt property values" and "clear the nation’s balance sheet of real estate holdings that, because they have been difficult to sell individually, have hung over the housing market and stunted sales of existing homes and new construction." The request for ideas comes from the Federal Housing Finance Agency, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the Treasury Department, and you can click here to submit your ideas.

As the article notes, the percentage of homes owned by the government that are currently in foreclosure is somewhat staggering:

Of the 248,000 homes owned by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the F.H.A. at the end of June, 70,000 were listed for sale, said Corinne Russell, a housing finance agency spokeswoman. The remainder were not yet on the market or the agencies had already received an offer from a prospective buyer.

But it is possible that hundreds of thousands of more homes that are now in the foreclosure process could come into the possession of the federal government in the next few years, housing experts say.

The government is now looking for a few good men ideas for how to deal with this crisis. Among those already proposed are "rent-to-own programs, in which previous homeowners or current renters could lease properties as a path to ownership, and ways in which the properties can be used to support affordable housing."

If you have any thoughts, be sure to let us know when you let the government know.

Landlords Have Duty To Maintain Premises Attractive To Tenants’ Customers

by: Katharine A. Muscalino

Although a landlord is generally required to maintain a leasehold in good condition, the Appellate Division has now clarified that the leasehold’s condition must make the premises attractive to tenants’ customers and assist in the tenants’ “in selling their wares and goods.” In Wallington Plaza, LLC v. Taher, decided on July 7, 2011, the tenant vacated the premises upon one months’ notice, with six months remaining in the lease term. The landlord demanded judgment in the amount of six months’ rent. However, the tenant claimed that because the landlord had breached an implied covenant to maintain the shopping center in a good condition attractive to tenants’ customers, tenant was only obligated to pay rent for the time it occupied the premises. Finding that the parking lot of the shopping center was run-down and that many of the other shopping center stores were vacant, the court agreed that landlord had breached this obligation. The court held that tenant was responsible for paying two months’ rent, inclusive of its last month of occupancy following its notice, because the lease required two months’ notice of termination of the lease.