Gu v. Liu

The landlord provided the requisite 60-day notice to terminate a tenancy at will before filing a dispossessory action against his tenants.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

This case involves an oral rental agreement. The record shows that Ruo-Qun Gu and Nai Zhi Bai entered into an oral agreement with Zhan-Ging Liu for the rental of property owned by Liu. The parties dispute whether the agreement was for one-year or was month to month. Fourteen months after the initial agreement, Liu tendered a sixty days demand for Gu and Bai to vacate the property, but Gu and Bai refused. Sixteen months after the initial agreement, Liu filed a dispossessory proceeding to remove Gu and Bai from the property. A magistrate judge ordered Gu and Bai to vacate the premises. Gu and Bai appealed to the superior court. Following a bench trial, the superior court judge also ruled in favor of Liu. Gu and Bai appeal this ruling. For reasons which follow, we affirm the superior court’s ruling. 1. Gu and Bai contend the trial court erred in ruling that oral rental agreements can only be on a month to month basis. They also contend that Liu admitted the oral agreement was for a one year period by failing to respond to requests for admission. Regardless of the merits of these contentions, Gu and Bai’s appeal is without merit.

Where there is an oral agreement, the law treats the agreement as a tenancy at will.1 And where no time is specified for the termination of a tenancy, the law construes it to be a tenancy at will.2 To terminate a tenancy at will, the landlord is only required to give the tenant sixty days’ notice.3 Here, Liu properly tendered a sixty days demand for Gu and Bai to vacate the property. Moreover, even if parole evidence could be used to establish and enforce the oral agreement,4 and even if the oral agreement was for a period of one year, that period of time had expired prior to Liu’s required sixty days demand and prior to the filing of the dispossessory case. Thus, at the time Liu sent the required statutory notice and subsequently filed the dispossessory case, Gu and Bai were clearly tenants at will. The trial court did not err in entering judgment in favor of Liu.

Gu v. Liu

The landlord provided the requisite 60-day notice to terminate a tenancy at will before filing a dispossessory action against his tenants.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report