For Your Data Martinique Realty Corp. V. Hull Illustration Brief
September 01, 2019
Edit
Martinique Realty Corp. v. Hull case brief summary
166 A.2d 803 (1960)
CASE FACTS
Plaintiff lessor purchased a leasehold involvement inward a 55-apartment edifice inward which accused tenants resided. Plaintiff brought adapt for recovery of past times due rent as well as defendants asserted that the entire rent for the term of the lease had been paid inward advance to the onetime lessor who sold the edifice to plaintiff.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The trial courtroom granted defendants' motility for summary judgment. Plaintiff argued that the prepayment of rent was no bar to recovery when that prepayment was inconsistent amongst the terms of the lease. Plaintiff too argued that it had no discovery of the advance payments as well as was non required to brand research of each tenant equally to his rights nether his tenancy.
DISCUSSION
The courtroom affirmed the grant of summary judgment inward favor of accused tenants because plaintiff lessor failed to fulfill its duty of research amongst honor to the defendants' rights nether their tenancy, as well as the plaitniff was dependent acre to the prior effective discharge past times defendants of their rental obligations.
See also: Martinique Realty Corp. v. Hull total representative on Google Scholar
Suggested police delineate schoolhouse report materials
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials
.
166 A.2d 803 (1960)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Plaintiff lessor appealed from the social club of the Superior Court of New Jersey, which granted accused tenants' motility for summary judgment inward plaintiff's adapt to recover unpaid rent.CASE FACTS
Plaintiff lessor purchased a leasehold involvement inward a 55-apartment edifice inward which accused tenants resided. Plaintiff brought adapt for recovery of past times due rent as well as defendants asserted that the entire rent for the term of the lease had been paid inward advance to the onetime lessor who sold the edifice to plaintiff.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The trial courtroom granted defendants' motility for summary judgment. Plaintiff argued that the prepayment of rent was no bar to recovery when that prepayment was inconsistent amongst the terms of the lease. Plaintiff too argued that it had no discovery of the advance payments as well as was non required to brand research of each tenant equally to his rights nether his tenancy.
DISCUSSION
- The courtroom noted that N.J. Statute §46:8-3 stated that a lessee's rights for a term of years survived the assignment of a lessor's interest.
- The plaintiff had a duty to enquire equally to the defendants' rights nether the lease.
- With honor to the details of a tenant's leasehold organization amongst his landlord, the purchaser's duty of research did non vary amongst the release of tenants that occupied the property.
- The courtroom affirmed the lower court.
The courtroom affirmed the grant of summary judgment inward favor of accused tenants because plaintiff lessor failed to fulfill its duty of research amongst honor to the defendants' rights nether their tenancy, as well as the plaitniff was dependent acre to the prior effective discharge past times defendants of their rental obligations.
See also: Martinique Realty Corp. v. Hull total representative on Google Scholar
Suggested police delineate schoolhouse report materials
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials
.