Opinion ID: 1183420
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: duty to protect the winns' right to possession

Text: The Winns contend that the Mannhalters had a duty to assure the Winns' continued possession of the premises. The Mannhalters argue that the Winns gave them no opportunity to do so because the Winns did not inform the Mannhalters of their intent to quit the premises. The seller's duty to defend the buyer's title to the premises is implied when the seller conveys and warrants the property to the buyer. AS 34.15.030. [8] Absent this or substantially similar language, no covenant is implied in a conveyance of real estate. AS 34.15.080. [9] The Assignment and Modification of Lease merely assigns the lease to the Winns; it contains no language similar to convey and warrant indicating an implied covenant to defend the Winns' title. Nor does the assignment contain an express assumption of this duty. Therefore, the Mannhalters had no duty to protect the Winns' continued possession under the lease.