Waleska Velez v. Cuyahoga Metro. Housing Authority, 795 F.3d 578 (2015)

Citation: Waleska Velez v. Cuyahoga Metro. Housing Authority, 795 F.3d 578 (2015)
Parent Document: Waleska Velez v. Cuyahoga Metro. Housing Authority, 795 F.3d 578 (2015)
Jurisdiction: United States (federal)
Effective Date: 2015-07-30
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2821966/waleska-velez-v-cuyahoga-metro-... ↗

Full Text

2,113 chars

Appellee seeks support for its position in the testimony of two experts upon which it
relied at the summary judgment stage. Both experts, according to Appellee, testified during
deposition that the short-term rental fee “compensate[d] the landlord for risks in having a short-
term tenant.” Appellee’s Br. 10. But, as explained above, the administrative and transactional
costs associated with the duration of that lease are always a factor in the rental price. The rental
value of a property with no term or time limitation14 should equal the price of acquiring the fee
simple absolute estate. By contrast, the lessor-lessee relationship—a term of years estate—is
defined by the fact that it “endure[s] for any fixed or computable period of time.” Restatement
(Second) of Property, Land. & Ten. § 1.4 (1977). Since rent, no matter how it is characterized in
a lease, is the price paid for the lessee’s use of the property for a distinct period of time, the lease
term and physical occupation of the property by a tenant cannot be separated. That is, the length
12
This is the only rental agreement between the parties that specifically denotes the fee. All other short-term
fee agreements were default rollover agreements that were automatically renewed on a month-to-month basis
following an original one-year lease agreement. It should be noted that this agreement includes the fee under the
section of the lease titled “Rent” and reads: “Resident(s) will pay $799.00 +$ 75.00 Month to Month Fee=$ 874.00
per calendar month for rental payments plus the monthly URC, payable in advance and without demand on or before
the 1st day of each month for a term of one year.” Id. (sic to formatting throughout).
13
Allowing a lessor the ability to divide out mandatory, discrete charges related to the usage cost of the rental
unit is not only not authorized by the Act, it would completely defeat the statutory subsidy scheme.
14
If such a thing could be conceived, as Appellee argues it can.
No. 14-3978 Velez, et al. v CMHA Page 12

Other Sections in This Document (60)

Full Text