Opinion ID: 2180190
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: The Landlord-Tenant Relationship

Text: Since we have concluded that U Street waived § 12 of its Contract of Lease, and there was no proof of a fraudulent or material misrepresentation by appellants with respect to the Assignment of Lease, we now consider appellee's argument that there was no landlord-tenant relationship between Sarete, a company in which Ms. Touelde and Mr. Samuel were the sole shareholders, and U Street because there was no require[d] privity of contract and privity of estate between plaintiff and defendant. We note at the outset that the case on which appellee relies for this proposition is Young, supra, a case involving a rather straightforward question as to whether the appellant, who had moved into an apartment with a friend whose father had leased the apartment, was wrongfully evicted after he refused to move when the friend's father notified the landlord that he would vacate, and did vacate, the apartment. The answer to that question depended upon the resolution of a factual question, whether the appellant was a roomer or a tenant, a question which we remanded to the trial court. In contrast, appellants' case here concerns a commercial lease, and a much more intricate factual scenario. In Wilson v. Hart, 829 A.2d 511 (D.C.2003), a wrongful eviction action pertaining to a residential apartment, we left open the question as to whether a wrongful eviction or breach of quiet enjoyment action may lie even if appellants' occupancy constituted something less than some sort of tenancy. Id. at 515 n. 9 (citations omitted). Furthermore, the concept of privity is not always regarded as a bar to a remedy. In the light of modern development, it must be supposed that the absence of privity is not a sufficient reason for denying a remedy. 9 ARTHUR L. CORBIN, CORBIN ON CONTRACTS § 778 (2004). Nevertheless, we begin by examining the concept of privity within the leasehold context. FRIEDMAN ON LEASES (FRIEDMAN) provides a general explanation of privity which is set forth below, in part: Liability between an owner of real property and parties with a leasehold interest is predicated on privity. The common law recognizes three types of privity  privity of contract, privity of estate, and a combination of privity of contract and estate. Privity of contract rests on agreement, whereas privity of estate rests on an interest in the leased premises. An original tenant, that is, one who acquires his lease directly from the owner of the property, is normally in privity of both contract and estate. His acquisition of the leasehold interest creates the privity of estate. His execution of the lease, with rare exception, includes an undertaking to pay the rent and to perform and observe the covenants in the lease on the tenant's part to be performed and observed. This creates privity of contract. If tenant assigns the lease his privity of estate thereby ends but privity of contract continues, that is, his right to possession ends but his liability under the lease continues.... The assignee acquires privity of estate. If the assignee assumes the tenant's obligations under the lease he comes under privity of contract as well. 1 MILTON R. FRIEDMAN, FRIEDMAN ON LEASES § 7:5.1[A], at X-XX-X-XX (5th ed.2004). (footnotes omitted). Section 7:5.1[C][1][a] of FRIEDMAN elaborates further on the meaning and implications of privity, even if the landlord has not consented to an assignment: By receiving the assignment  regardless of landlord's consent thereto  the assignee acquires an interest in the premises that brings him into privity of estate with the owner and makes him liable to the owner for the payment of rent and on those tenant covenants that run with the land. Acceptance of the assignment creates the privity of estate and its consequent liability ... The liability imposed on an assignee by privity of estate differs in two respects from that of the original tenant, or that of an assignee who has expressly assumed the tenant obligations.... The assignee's liability created by privity of estate does not include anything that accrued before the assignment. The assignee is not liable for a breach by the original tenant or by a prior assignee. Nor is he liable for rent payable before the assignment to him even if this covers a period subsequent thereto ... but [while] ... [a]n assignee is not personally liable for prior breaches, ... he takes the lease subject to forfeiture if these breaches are not cured. Id at X-XXX-X-XXX (footnotes omitted). From these FRIEDMAN excerpts, we conclude that Sarete acquired privity of estate with the landlord when U Street waived § 12 of the Contract of Lease, and when it assumed Mr. Gebremedhin's obligations under the lease. Moreover, especially after Mr. Gebremedhin returned his keys to Ms. Myers, thus relinquishing or waiving any right to the leasehold, Sarete was in privity of contract with U Street. Even assuming Sarete was not in privity of contract with U Street, its privity of estate with U Street ma[d]e [it] liable to [U Street] for the payment of rent. FRIEDMAN, supra, § 7:5.1[C][1][a] at 7-103. And, in that regard, there was at least some sort of tenancy or landlord-tenant relationship. Wilson, supra, 829 A.2d at 515.