Applicability of Statutes Governing Fitness for Habitation

[mysticide]

My question involves landlord-tenant law in the State of: Tennessee.

In reference to this:

2010 Tennessee Code
Title 68 - Health, Safety and Environmental Protection
Chapter 111 - Rented Premises Unfit For Habitation

http://law.justia.com/tennessee/code...8/chapter-111/

and in sub-reference to this:

68-111-108 - Applicability of §§ 68-111-103 and 68-111-104.

http://law.justia.com/tennessee/code...11/68-111-108/

are sections 68-111-103 and 68-111-104 valid for yearly leases but paid monthly or are they referring to not having a lease and renting from month to month?

It is understandable that sections 68-111-103 and 68-111-104 would not apply to a rental that rents on a month to month basis because the chain of events required to deal with the problem spanning the distance between 68-111-101 through 68-111-107 could not be accomplished in one month.

It is also understandable that if a person has a yearly lease the requirements between 68-111-101 through 68-111-107 could be accomplished.

I am I correct in assuming that sections 68-111-103 and 68-111-104 are applicable to a tenant who has a lease?

[Mr. Knowitall]

Sections 68-111-103 and 68-111-104 shall not apply to rental agreements in which the rent is assessed and collected monthly, or assessed and collected for a term greater than monthly.

The statute speaks for itself. What are you trying to ask?

[mysticide]

The statute speaks for itself. What are you trying to ask?

I'm asking because if this section of the law does not apply to tenants who pay rent monthly and does not apply to tenants who pay amounts that are greater than a months rent then it applies to no one and the law is void.

in essence this section of the law can only apply to tenants who live in a dwelling rent free at the kindness of the property owner and since that doesn't happen this entire section of the law is void.

Basically it cannot be used by any paying tenant to complain about a landlord who who is really a slum lord.

[mysticide]

Am I correct or not in understanding the wording of this section of the law is self defeating and voids itself?

It doesn't seem to apply to those who pay by the month or greater than a months rent thus nullifying the whole ball of wax.

[mysticide]

I find this really confusing. Anyone have any input?

[mysticide]

Hello? Anybody here?

[cyjeff]

Don't bump your own thread. It is terribly rude.

We are volunteers here with lives, families and jobs. If you want a quicker answer than we provide, feel free to obtain the services of an excellent local attorney.

[mysticide]

Sorry about that, I can wait.

[aaron]

It's possible to have rental periods that are shorter than a month. Within such a context, the short statutory deadlines for government response make sense - rooming houses, "by the week" motels, etc.

[mysticide]

It's possible to have rental periods that are shorter than a month. Within such a context, the short statutory deadlines for government response make sense - rooming houses, "by the week" motels, etc.

It can't apply to those who pay less than a months rent either because the due process described in this section of the law cannot be carried out in such a short amount of time thus voiding it.

This law describes a process that takes nearly a year.