Talk:Leasehold estate

Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Law (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.


Information in the "Tenancy at will" section was originally written by SteveHFish; moved here with merger of various forms of tenancy into one article. Other information on this page was moved here from the original "Tenant" article, and was written by Kappa, Mydogategodshat, OwenBlacker, and Pedant17. -- BD2412 talk 05:40, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)

Tenancy at sufferance / trespass[edit]

You can make an argument that a tenant at sufferance is not technically a trespasser, because at the start of the tenancy the entry on to the property was lawful...

see Adrian Bradbrook, Susan MacCallum and Anthony Moore, Australian Real Property Law (3rd ed, 2002) [12.13].

Assured Shorthold Tenancy[edit]

Where does this common UK form of letting come into it?

Most residential property is let via a AST and most buy to let lenders require it as a matter of course.

On a related thought: What's the difference between letting and leasing anyway?

Simon West 20:04, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

There's no practical difference. An AST is a statutory form of tenancy (so a tenancy may be or may not be an AST). Francis Davey (talk) 10:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Peer review comments[edit]

Several months ago, I consolidated two groups of articles into comprehensive articles on these relative concepts, then tweaked and expanded from there. It has occurred to me that these might be on the path to being featured articles, and could benefit from peer review. I present them together because the style and organization is prety much the same for both, so I assume they share the same faults. bd2412 T 23:03, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Yup. They share the same faults.
  1. Insufficient lead text in one,
  2. sections are lopsided. Balance the content in sections and avoid the usage of subheadings as far as possible.
  3. Are these specifically US laws?
  4. No references
  5. No images
  6. External links are formatted incorrectly.

=Nichalp «Talk»= 11:44, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


This is in comparison such an excellent article that its authors could surely improve the much too theoretical approach and legalese on leasing. In addition, there is repetition, overlapping, and confusion between it and this article and rental agreement. --Espoo 08:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

"fixed-term tenancy" more common than "tenancy for years"?[edit] - this BTW has tenancy-at-will as a synonym of and instead of periodic lease, which the present article claims is a different thing! --~~

Merging Leasehold here[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
To not merge; consensus opinion over 4 years. Klbrain (talk) 22:46, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Apparently this has been suggested, but I'm not sure it's a great idea. Leasehold in general is to be contrasted with, say, freehold; it's a legal concept concerning whether the land belongs to the owner of the title in perpetuity (freehold), or for a certain amount of time and then reverts to the government (leasehold). Leasehold estate seems to cover leasing of real estate in general, rather than dealing with this specific concept. Johnleemk | Talk 20:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Voting against a merger with Landlord-Tenant. Speaking as a law school dropout who got a good grade in Property Law a long time ago, I can't remember what a Leasehold is. It would be more accessible to keep the Landlord-Tenant entry so as to provide info to the layperson. CharlesSearch (talk) 00:58, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

A global article regarding Landlord/Tenant law?[edit]

In the USA, landlord/tenant law is relegated to the states, and there are vast differences from state to state. The concepts in this article may originate from English common law, but that doesn't mean they've been adopted in every US state. For example, LL/T law in Texas is dictated by Texas common law as well as the Texas Property Code. Moreover, some of these laws may be modified or disregarded per the terms of the lease agreement. This article is way too generic and misleading, discussing legal constructs that may or may not exist where the individual Wikipedia reader resides. Cap'n Walker 16:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

That's true of basically all wikipedia law articles and its a bigger and more difficult problem than just here. Francis Davey 17:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
See my remarks on cleanup. Francis Davey (talk) 14:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Merger proposal[edit]

Initiating discussion on whether Tenancy for years should be merged here. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. There's hardly anything there and some of its wrong anyway. Francis Davey (talk) 13:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Merger proposal2[edit]

In the light of the above merger proposal, may I propose that Leasehold be merged here. Its a truly uninspiring article with many errors (not good for something little more than a stub) and doesn't seem to have any use as an addition to this article. Francis Davey (talk) 19:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

 a lease and a leasehold estate are two different things I disagree.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC) 


I propose that we clean up this article by removing jurisdiction specific material in the form of assertions that only hold in one place and that don't reflect a general or historical position. If editors know of particular rules in their own jurisdiction then I would suggest either a separate article on that jurisdiction, or a sub-section of this. Francis Davey (talk) 13:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I have just carried out an example edit - basically removing a lot of extraneous material that isn't true in general. Francis Davey (talk) 13:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I would also propose a 2-part division at the root level to explain both property leasing and equipment leasing. In the equipment leasing industry, there are 4 commonly described categories divided by transaction size; Large Ticket (e,g, airplanes, mining equipment), Medium Ticket (e.g heavy equipment, healthcare diagnostc equipment), Small Ticket (e.g. medical lasers, MRIs, alternate power generation), and Micro Ticket (office equipment,point-of-sale computer systems, Telecommunications). Lease agreements in these categories vary in term, but are generally contingent upon the "usable life" of the equipment that is being leased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt Doty (talkcontribs) 21:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Right, but a lot of this article (and some of the others) is about the legal concepts involve in lease. What a particularl industry chooses to do is quite a different question - there's nothing very complicated about leases of chattels or movable property and it doesn't give rise to much useful law. Francis Davey (talk) 10:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal3[edit]

I note that there has been a long outstanding proposed merge between Leasing and Renting. I suggest that that merge is done, and then Lease redirects here to Leasehold estate. There is *so* much cleanup work required on this subject :( DWaterson (talk) 23:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

There are too many articles covering the same subject matter. Most of them are based on a misconceived premise. There is no such thing in law as "Leasehold estate" - "estate" implies that the proprietory interest is a "real" interest, which it is not. It is a "contract" interest. Similarly, "Leasehold" is a term in common usage, without any legal basis. The proper term is "Lease". All related articles should merge into it.Ewawer (talk) 06:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

There is certainly such a thing as a "leasehold estate" in English Law, indeed it is one of the two possible legal estates in land (the other being freehold). Leases were of course derived from a purely personal right, but acquired a proprietary character, hence they strictly fall into the category of "chattel real". Things may well have simplified in many US states of course. Francis Davey (talk) 00:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
... actually of 3 legal estates, one always forgets commonhold.Francis Davey (talk) 23:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
To 'lease' and 'rent' does not just apply to property, therefore I can only suggest you move the parts of the article appropriate from 'lease' and 'rent', but leave them open as their own topic, albeit with a qualifier saying "for leasing a property, see 'leasehold estate'", make sense? Miscreant (talk) 10:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
That's true - or at least it is true now. Strictly "rent" was really only something due from a tenant to a landlord but the term is now much wider. What do you propose? That the material in Lease is all moved (almost all of it is about the leasehold estate) to Leasehold with a redirect from Leasehold estate? Or should we have a Lease (land) page? Its something it would be useful to have consensus on. Provided we have something consistent we are OK. Francis Davey (talk) 21:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Leasehold estate??????? Why on earth would we want to obfuscate a common topic like a "lease" by merging it with something that sounds as obscure as "leasehold estate"? This would be a ridiculous decision. No merge. Jason Quinn (talk) 15:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't know. Let's redirect Lease to a page that discusses this. Dr.EnAmi (talk) 22:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Merger proposal4 - landlord-tenant law[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
To not merge landlord-tenant law into this page; no consensus, stale merge. Klbrain (talk) 22:49, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

I've proposed the merger of that page to this one, as the content is substantially the same especially with regards to duties and rights of landlords and tenants. There may be an issue regarding the focus on American law however. I have read the above discussion and I'm not sure that a consensus was reached about the other pages as well which raised similar issues... --Unavoidable (talk) 18:23, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The problem with having a page on real property law, *especially* about landlord and tenant, is that it is very, very, jurisdictional. Because there's no cross-border trade in land (for obvious reasons) each jurisdiction is more inclined to develop its own, distinct rules. One very general page about L&T pointing to specific pages on each legal system makes sense. A history of the common law of landlord and tenant, prior to the US split, might also be useful. But all the 20th century regulation of tenancies is going to be so different everywhere as to make any general page at best wildly confusing. Even here in England and Wales there are sufficient differences growing up in Wales for it to require some work and Scotland is utterly different. How about: (1) a historical article about the idea of the landlord and tenant relationship in common law, describing some of the concepts etc, and explaining how leasehold became an estate in land, pointing to; (2) articles about L&T law divided by jurisdiction (maybe a single US page is possible, I don't know) including an overview of some of the regulation (then pointing to pages like assured tenancy for specifics); (3) other concepts like "rent" should be treated as a disambiguation perhaps pointing to suitable places; (4) lease has other meanings and can be another disambiguation or short general article which can point to something about other kinds of leasing (chattel leases are interesting enough to be worth having their own page, but are more easily unifyable across the world). Any taxonomy (eg into different "kinds" of tenancy) can be dealt with by jurisdiction. Francis Davey (talk) 22:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree with that general concept -- the problem right now is that there are pages that are essentially on the same topic but focus on different jurisdictions and it's pretty confusing. A general conception of landlord-tenant law / leasehold estates under the common law can fit in this page, and I agree it should point to jurisdiction-specific pages following that. I guess the question then is what is "common" enough to include and what should be jurisdictionalized. --Unavoidable (talk) 22:15, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
I'd suggest early common law origins - from which the common law world draws its jurisprudence - up to the 18th century. Then the US splits off and starts to do its own thing, followed progressively by other common law countries. The common ideas and concepts, eg forfeiture, rent, privity of estate and so on had been formed by that time. It would then be really useful if there was some pointers to areas that have changed the same way later - but we'd need some references for that - or that have been abandoned wholesale. We also have confusing stuff at ground rent and rentcharge and chief rent again worth a clean up, but that's probably beyond our scope. Lease seems to focus, properly, on the abstract concept of time-limited contracts with possibly recurring costs, but it could contain a disambiguation pointer to what we might call something like Leasehold or Landlord and Tenant (common law) or something - I'm not sure what. Articles that should be merged/re-ordered would be:
  • landlord - needs to distinguish the licensed victualler meaning. Do we need a general article on the equivalent relationship worldwide and historically? Strikes me as a social rather than legal article about the concept of renting homes/property, which can point in. Anyway most of this article could be merged
  • tenant - is already a disambiguation. A page on landlord and tenant law should clearly note that "tenant" is used in two ways in the common law and that the two terms are distinct. I am a tenant of my flat, but my landlord is a feudal tenant-in-chief holding of the Crown in common socage.
  • lease has a bunch of material on types of landlord and tenant relationship. These are properly types of tenancy since a "lease" can be used to mean the document that creates a relationship rather than the relationship itself and there is not always a documentary relationship. I'd split off that material (which is all common law) and bring it into the proposed landlord and tenant law page. I'm not sure what then happens to "lease" but maybe it becomes more generic and less land focussed.
  • gross lease is a stub without any reference to a particular jurisdiction (suspect US) and might usefully be merged
or something like that. Francis Davey (talk) 09:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the current split is just fine, and it largely reflects the split between books on "land law" dealing with proprietary and conveyancing aspects, and the books on landlord and tenant specifically, which carry rather more detail on the personal obligations of the parties. Lawdroid (talk) 06:53, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment[edit]

In regards to covenant of quiet enjoyment redirecting here: since a general warranty deed also contains a covenant for quiet enjoyment, should a disambiguation page (as opposed to a redirect to here) be used instead? Dbrote (talk) 22:43, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Effects on Tenancy - what about apartments?[edit]

This section of the article seems to deal exclusively with agricultural holdings. Not all leasehold property is agricultural - what about effects on tenants of leasehold apartment buildings (in cities, towns and some villages in UK)? (Declared interest - I am viewing a leasehold flat which is on market under a buy-to-let landlord with view to purchase.)Cloptonson (talk) 16:01, 19 March 2016 (UTC)