• Uncategorized

Brief Brief

Brief

Brief

Statementof the Case

Guzmanhas children and her husband died some years ago, hence she seekspublic assistance to support her family. He rents a two-bedroomapartment in an old building, which belongs to A-I Realty Co. Thebuilding is in the worst state, thus Guzman thinks that it is ahealth hazard. The sewer and water systems work terribly, thepopulation of rats and the power surges keep increasing. After makingcomplaints several times to the landlord, Guzman has sued thelandlord as she alleges constructive eviction.

of the Argument

Thecourt ruled in favor of A-1 1 realty co, and against Guzman. Itdecided that the apartment has been leased as a residence, and thatthe apartment’s condition was suitable for occupancy as aresidence. This is a question of fact, “because it can be decidedon the basis of only the evidence in the record.” Jaffe, Louis,Judicial Review: Question of Fact.1020 (2nded. 2012). For instance, is the sewer and water system of theapartment effective?

Thecourt ruled in favor of A-I 2 Realty and against Guzman. The opinionof the court was that the presence of rats in a building would beunsuitable for occupancy, but that the particular building does nothave rats. “Such an issue is an issue is a question of fact becauseit may be decided on the basis of only the evidence which is on therecord.” Isaacs, Nathan, TheLaw and the Facts 13(2nded. 2012).For instance, does the building have rats?

Thetrial court rules against Guzman and in favor of A-1 3 Realty. Thetrial court decided that to win in a claim for constructive eviction,the landlord must have the intentions to force the tenant to move.This is a question of law, “because it can be decided withoutreference to the facts of the case at all.” Jaffe, Louis, JudicialReview: Question of Law.276 (4thed. 2005. For instance, did the landlord have intentions of evictingthe tenant?

A-1realty refused to answer interrogatories that Guzman had requested onthem in the pretrial discovery. Guzman moved for an order thatrequired A-1 realty to answer the ten interrogatories that they hadrefused to answer. Five of the questions were found by the trialcourt to be objectionable while the other five were found to beproper. A-1 were ordered by the court to answer five of the properinterrogatories while did not order them to answer the remaining fivethat the court viewed objectionable. “This is a question within thetrial court’s discretion because it was neither a question of lawnor a question of fact.” Jaffe, Louis,Judicial Review: Question of Fact.1020 (2nded. 2012).

Therule of procedure that is applicable when a motion to compel isdenied in part and granted in part. The court decides that each partyshould bear their own expenses. In the Guzman case the court orderedthat each of the concerned parties were to pay for their ownexpenses. “This was a question of fact because this was a rule ofprocedure that when the motion to compel is granted in part anddenied in part then they are required to bear their own expenses.”Jaffe, Louis,Judicial Review: Question of Fact.1020 (2nded. 2012).

Argument

Thetrial decided to rule against Guzman and favor A-1 1 Realty becauseit held that to win on a constructive eviction clam, the plaintiffhas to prove that the property was not suitable for occupancy for thepurposes that the occupancy was intended. The court further assertedthat the apartment had been leased as a residence and that theapartment’s condition suited occupancy as a residence. The judgmentshould be reversed because of abuse of discretion, whereby the courtabused its discretion when it decided that the apartment was suitablefor occupancy as a residence. On record, there was no evidence,hence the judgment of the trial court was based on its owndiscretion.

Thetrial court ruled in favor of A-1 2 and against Guzman, whereby itheld that in order to win on a case for constructive eviction, theplaintiff has to prove that the property was not suitable foroccupancy for the purpose in which the occupancy was intended. Assuch, it acknowledged the fact that the presence of rats would not besuitable for occupancy, but that the particular building did not haverats. The judgment should be reversed because of the abuse ofdiscretion, whereby the trial court abused its discretion when itfound that the building does not have rats. The judgment was left forthe court’s discretion because there was clearly no evidence onrecord about the increasing population of rats in the building.

Thetrial court rules against Guzman and in favor of A-1 3 Realty, anddecided that to win a claim for constructive eviction the landlordshould have had the intentions to forcefully move the tenant. Thejudgment of the court that a successful claim for constructiveeviction must prove the intent to evict should be reversed becausethere is clearly an erroneous De novo, whereby the trial court foundthe lack of evidence to prove that the landlord intended for theforceful eviction of the tenant.

Thetrial court ruling was in favor of A-1 realty because Guzman did notget the trial court to rule to her advantage, which required them toanswer the ten interrogatories. “The trial court abused itsdiscretion as the court allowed only A-1 realty to answer only fivequestions as they were viewed as proper while the other five wereviewed as objectionable what rationale did they chose to come to thisconclusion.” Rosenberg, Maurice, JudicialDiscretion of the Trial Court, Viewed from Above 635(1sted. 2009).

&quotThiswas an abuse of discretion because the court did not explain as towhy the motion to compel was denied in part and granted in part.”Rosenberg, Maurice, JudicialDiscretion of the Trial Court, Viewed from Above 635(1sted. 2009). It was not clear as to why this was so and that was thereason why both parties involved appealed.

Conclusion

“Aquestion of law is that which can be decided without reference to thefacts of the case at all, whereas a question of fact is a questionthat can be decide by using the evidence available on the record.”Rosenberg, Maurice, JudicialDiscretion of the Trial Court, Viewed from Above 635 (1sted. 2009).On the other hand, there exist mixed question of law andfact, which identify both legal and factual questions as well as thereview standards. Lastly, there are questions within the trialcourt’s discretion, whereby the judge does not have discretion asto whether to apply the rules of law, which are relevant. In essence,the laws and facts have to be identified by the judge, in order tomake the right decisions. “If there is any error in the making ofdecisions regarding the decisions of fact, decisions of law and thoseleft to the discretion of the court, there can be an occurrence of anappeal, where a lawyer can seek for an appeal due to the errors.”Djankov, Simeon, et al, Courts550(3rded. 2003). Evidently, the significance of identifying the categoriesof trial court decisions is mandatory for the successful decisionmaking of the courts.

References

Jaffe,Louis,Judicial Review: Question of Fact.1020 (2nded. 2012).

Jaffe,Louis, JudicialReview: Question of Law.276 (4thed. 2005)

Isaacs,Nathan, TheLaw and the Facts 13(2nded. 2012).

Djankov,Simeon, et al, Courts550(3rded. 2003).

Rosenberg,Maurice, JudicialDiscretion of the Trial Court, Viewed from Above 635(1sted. 2009).

1