Does a contract become void if one party is breaking the law by entering into it?

Question

Specific: The place I am renting is zoned for single family use (a family plus one non family member). My landlord knowingly rented to 5 non related college students. Does this void the contract?

Answer 1

I think it does void a contract

Answer 2

coragryph's brief essay at least tries to discuss the question in terms of legal principles; the answers of the others are simply guesswork. Why answerors are allowed to guess about the law, and why questioners pay such guessers any mind escapes me.

But theoretical legal principles as often as not miss the point. I've done some brief legal search (not on a Westlaw or Lexis because there's no point in this case: we don't know the state involved; but on http://www.lexisone.com , a free site (registration required) that gives the past 5 years of appellate judgments for all 50 states).

Using Search Terms: I got 36 hits, a workable number.

Most of the hits, perhaps because the search was inexpertly forumated, concern zoming appeals. A few come close to answering the question -- subject to a few more facts that we don't know:

(1) 2 HAVEMEYER PLACE COMPANY, LLC v. ALLAN S. GORDON, 93 Conn. App. 140; 888 A.2d 141 (2006) (distinguishing between a site plan and zoning requirements):

¶ Q: Is a lease "illegal ab initio" if "the terms of the lease expressly and illegally violated the site plan" and, therefore, unenforceable", or if restrictive covenants prohibit its execution, or if it violates zoning laws?

¶ A: "Parties may bind themselves to a contract that calls on its face for a use of property that violates the zoning laws because, due to the possibility of obtaining a variance, such a bargain is not against public policy or public morals. . . . A lease providing for a use of premises which is prohibited by the zoning law is not necessarily illegal where it appears that an appeals board has the authority to permit a variance." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) 12 Havemeyer Place Co., LLC v. Gordon, 76 Conn. App. 377, 386, 820 A.2d 299, cert. denied, 264 Conn. 919, 828 A.2d 618 (2003).

(2) Peek v. Dominguez, 72 S.W.3d 239 (C.A. Mo., E. Dist. 2002)

¶ The lease does not state who is to obtain an occupancy permit. It does, however, state that the "lessee agrees ... not to use or permit the use of the [premises] for any purpose forbidden by law or ordinance now in force or hereafter enacted in respect to the use or occupancy of said premises." n1

n1 We note Tenant did not reserve a power to terminate the lease if his intended use could not be met.

Tenant did not apply for or obtain an occupancy permit. Seven months into the lease, Tenant gave Landlord notice that his occupancy was in violation of the zoning ordinance and moved out. Tenant ceased paying rent.

¶ Tenant might have brought the premises within the zoning ordinance by obtaining a variance and therefore cannot avoid his liability on the ground of illegality under these circumstances.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In these two cases from random jurisdictions, a single theme arises: a lease that is in violation of zoning rules is not, in itself, void or avoidable because it is at least theoretically possible to obtain a variance.

Another questions arises:

Does a third party -- a neighbor -- have standing to attack the lease, or is his remedy limited to denouncing the violator to the authorities and seeking prosecution, and so eviction (if a variance cannot be obtained) on basis of illegality?

I don't live in any state, and I don't practice land law except insofar as it concerns land I own in countries other than the USA. But having found two consistent rulings in just a brief search within a limited (but free and gratis) data base, I would question whether the point addressed in the question is, or could be, decisive.

coragryph, though he has written an intelligent law-school essay has not resolved the problem, or furnished the key to do so -- nor has he claimed to do more than state broad principles.

Thus he has assumed illegality of the lease although that illegality might be cured. (And I'm not even going into the issue of what could be done to change the relationships of the parties to get them outside the scope of the zoning prohibition. Or whether there is some state law protective of students leasing property that overrides the zoning rule.)

Bubbie hits the real issue on the head, and perhaps deserves the 10 points for getting there first.

If I had all the facts I might have offered a complete analysis. But then a local lawyer in your area versed in zoning and in landlord-tenant disputes might have known the answer already without spending 30-60 minutes looking it up.

Answer 3

If the subject matter of the contract is itself illegal, then the contract is generally void "ab initio", meaning void automatically from the start.

If one party (the one breaking the law) did not have the legal authority to enter into the contract, then it is probably voidable. Voidable means it can be voided by affirmative action but is not automatically void.

In almost all other situations based on the facts you present, the contract is still likely valid, but probably not enforceable. That is different than being void or voidable.

Answer 4

It may be a violation of a zoning ordinace.

The lease is not necessarily void and unenforceable where the zoning authorities have the power to grant a variance or the continuance of a conforming use. The ordinance may provide for a possible variance or conditional use.

You would need to bring the issue up to code enforcement officials.

Answer 5

clint: it depends upon local law. I am a landlord. And have property in a college town.

The local rules (law) are very specific about how many occupants and what the relationships must be to 'perfect' a lease agreement.

Check with the local jurisdictional body for specifics as to your situation.

Answer 6

yes a contract is void if one party breaks the law or has the other party enter into it under false pretenses.

Answer 7

Yes, it is then void, but that can be challenged in court, so you need to get some legal assistance. Lawyer Referral # call information and get the #.

Answer 8

Yes, it's void. That's well established in contract law.

Answer 9

I believe this is true in all cases, but know of one for sure. If a person who is married gets married to someone else, the second marriage never existed.

Answer 10

a contract does not exist at all if there is a violation as part of it. type"contract law" and see what you come up with.