[ad_1]
A landlord can only evict a couple from their home for eight years once they have signed an enforceable agreement to sell the property within a specified period after the lease ends, the Superior Court has ruled.
Judge Garrett Simons canceled a layoff notice against Brendan and Erika Gunn at their home in the city of Wicklow, but said owner David Warrick could now serve a new layoff notice.
He was dealing with an appeal by the Gunns against a decision by a Residential Leasing Board (RTB) leasing court that determined that a December 2018 termination notice in the Gunns was valid.
The judge said the property had been leased to the Gunns since 2012 through an agent with Warrick’s wife, Laura Harding, named as the owner.
Following two termination notices in the name of Ms. Harding, the first withdrawn and the second declared invalid, a third was served in December 2018 in the name of Mr. Warrick. This notice included a legal statement by Mr. Warrick of his intention to sell the property as required by law.
The Gunns appealed that to an RTB leasing court claiming there was insufficient evidence to identify the owner.
They also claimed that the requirement for an enforceable agreement to sell the property had not been met within three months of completion. Since then, the law has been amended to establish a nine-month period to complete the sale, the court heard.
The leasing court determined that the termination was valid on the basis that Mr. Warrick, who was found to be the owner, had taken the necessary steps to “demonstrate more than mere intention to sell.” These included hiring an agent to sell, erecting a “for sale” sign, and educating an attorney.
The Gunns appealed to the High Court alleging that the court had erred in law.
On Friday, Judge Simons said the court was correct in finding that Warrick was the owner.
However, he said the Gunns’ claim regarding the absence of an enforceable sale agreement was well founded.
There was simply no evidence in court that would have allowed him to reach a legal conclusion that, as of December 18, 2018, the landlord intended to commit to a contract of sale within three months of the termination of the lease, said. .
The court made a legal error in interpreting the relevant articles (34 and 35) of the Residential Leases Act 2004 and in applying the principles established by a previous judgment of the Superior Court.
Therefore, he was issuing a formal order canceling the termination. However, in circumstances where the law has since been amended to allow “a more realistic timeline” of the sale of three to nine months, it would not send the matter back to the RTB.
For all parties, the landlord, if he so wishes, must send a new notice of termination in accordance with the current version of the legislation, he said.
[ad_2]