Hey, there! Log in / Register
Court: Foreigners who break leases can't blame the US government for not approving their visas to return here
By adamg on Fri, 12/05/2014 - 11:23am
NOTE: Headline changed to reflect the fact it was the US government, not the Chinese, that wouldn't let the family return here.
A Chinese CFO who rented a house in Belmont for a year owes the landlord rent for the entire year, even though she and her family found themselves stuck in China midway through the year after the US would not grant them visas to return here after a trip there.
Property owners Shoreh and Fadi Karaa sued Kuk Yim, her employer and her husband for the entire year's rent. Yim had counter-sued to be released from the obligation. Kuk Yim said it wasn't her fault she, her husband and their daughter, couldn't come back here and so they had the right under "the doctrine of frustration of purpose" to abrogate the $4,500-a-month lease unilaterally.
But that doctrine, which the court noted "is a companion rule to the doctrine of impossibility," only holds when the person attempting to use it is frustrated by something they could not have foreseen. The appeals court agreed with the trial judge in the case, who said the Yim "knew or should have known that there was a possibility that the family's visa status might change, and she voluntarily undertook that risk [by returning to China]."
The court did award Yim $189 - treble damages for interest on the last month's rent, which Karaas had not paid Yim as required under state tenant laws.
Neighborhoods:
Free tagging:
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
 Complete ruling | 121.23 KB |
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
uh, why a full year?
The landlord is obligated to attempt to rent the place, and they can't double-dip.
Why are they getting a full year's rent?
Read the case before
Read the case before commenting. It's explained within and they didn't get a full year's rent and didn't double dip. The lease was broken a couple months in. Upon the breach, the landlords re-listed through an agent but didn't get a new tenant until a few months later. The court found they made good faith efforts to get new tenants as soon as possible, and otherwise the breaching tenants were not absolved from having to pay to cover the gap period.
In most states (99% sure this
In most states (99% sure this includes Massachusetts), the landlord does not have to accept the surrender of the apartment and can essentially ignore notice of the broken lease and keep charging rent for the full term as if all was normal. It is only when the landlord agrees to take the keys/possession of the apartment that the duty to mitigate damages by attempting to find a new tenant kicks in. I had this situation when we bought a house (and broke our lease). They refused to accept the keys or try to find a new tenant. It got resolved, but it required me putting on my lawyer hat and write some nasty-grams.
This is despite a fabulous security deposit law here in MA (must be kept in a separate account, must given the tenant interest earned, if landlord doesn't return or give itemized list of deductions for damages then landlord forfeits all claim any of the security deposit, treble damages for violation). See the ruling for a discussion on that law.
Which government??
Shouldn't it be the US government which would not grant them the visa to come back to the US? Or a re-entry permit? The Chinese government could, I imagine, deny them permission to leave China, but only US authorities can grant someone permission to stay in the US.
Er, yes, you're right
When I blow it, I do it well. Rereading the decision, it's clear the issue was they returned to China and then the US wouldn't let them back in. Wish I could blame it on lack of coffee, but no, I was fully caffeinated at the time. I've changed the original post; thanks for pointing that out.
after the US would not grant
I just changed the post
My original version said the Chinese government wouldn't let them leave; in fact, it was the US government that wouldn't let them re-enter. My apologies for the error and confusion.
$4500/month for a rental?
Yikes. What was it, Mitt Romney's house complete with the illegal alien landscapers?
Probably fairly nice, yes
Given that the couple rented it specifically so their daughter could go to Belmont schools.
Zillow page on the house.
Renting a $1.2m house for $4500/mo doesn't sound bad
Not sure why this is at all surprising.
$4,500/mo. gets you a rat
$4,500/mo. gets you a rat infested parking space in parts of Beacon Hill!
Furnished?
Sounds like it may have been a furnished rental, where the contents of the house come with the rent.
having recently moved from SF...
That doesn't sound unreasonable for a detached, 3+ bedroom family home in a good neighborhood.
(Not that I could ever afford it, just that seems like market rate to me.)
Gets you lots of Belmont perks
Like those fine quality roads you can see in the street view on Zillow. Seriously, what do Belmont public works people do with their time? Clearly not fixing roads.
Questions
Good luck on collecting on that judgment...
If I'm looking at this purely from an economics standpoint, would it not have been better for the landlords to simply have cut their losses and rerented the apartment as soon as possible? How much were the court costs? I'm not saying the landlords were wrong to sue the tenant, but I'm wondering if the landlords actually lost money in this situation.
Looks like they did both.
Looks like they did both. They re-rented as soon as possible and then brought suit a few months later for back rent owed. The reason they brought suit was because the court awarded them attorneys fees in addition to damages. Stated in the case brief.
But...
In reality, with the defendants in China, are the landlords ever going to be able to collect on this judgment? It's great that the court found in their favor, but if they never get the money, then so what?
I'll be back...
Chances are that the Chinese family will eventually be able to get back to the US and when they do they won't want to have an unpaid judgement hanging over them. If they ever plan to come back, they'll pay...slowly perhaps.
Good point. I wonder if VISA
Good point. I wonder if VISA applications have a section on outstanding legal judgments/liens. If so, and if the family plans to return to the US, then I suppose that they will pay, eventually.
I would be surprised if civil
I would be surprised if civil judgments are made available for those kinds of checks. It would show up on a credit check, however.
A Quick Google
Tells me that you are correct.
Legitimate point. Lot of
Legitimate point. Lot of facts we don't know so hard to say with any certainty. Maybe they figured out the visa situation post-tenancy so they're back here and reachable? If they're still in China, I think it's next to impossible from what I've heard and read before, though not really my area of knowledge. But also might be a thing where the landlords had the money to front the cost of this and do it on principle figuring they'd hang this over the couple if they ever come back here.
Good for the landlord, now
Good for the landlord, now what are they going to do, send the bill for attorney fees to China?
Here's a thing not made in China?
Lawyers.
Actually, yes
Actually, yes, you can serve a process on a person or entity in China--they signed on to the appropriate Hague Convention.
too slow
In this town, if you can't find a tenant in 2 weeks, you're charging too much rent.
Best place for Yim Sum?
Massachusetts Appeal Court.