Judge Joel Kullas

Read Full-Text Decision

Petitioner sought possession of the subject premises in this summary licensee holdover proceeding. The parties entered into a so-ordered stipulation granting petitioner final judgment of possession and warrant of eviction, with execution stayed to allow respondents to vacate. The court noted in consideration of the date as final, petitioner waived the right to seek use and occupancy for Feb. 2, 2016 through Jan. 2, 2017. Rahima Kabir, one of the signatories to the stipulation, was the former premises’ owner, but now moved to vacate same alleging fraud in that petitioner allegedly fraudulently induced her to transfer ownership of the premises to it in 2016. The court noted the allegation was unenforceable and violated the statute of frauds. Also, it found HETPA did not apply, and even if it did, a violation would render the transaction voidable, not void. Also, as respondent waived the affirmative claim of title by signing the stipulation and obtaining a waiver of 12 months of use and occupancy, and received the benefit of the bargain, she may not claim same now, finding no fraud resulting from the stipulation’s signing. Thus, as Kabir did not demonstrate the stipulation was the product of fraud, there was no basis to vacate, denying the motion.

Judge Joel Kullas

Read Full-Text Decision

Petitioner sought possession of the subject premises in this summary licensee holdover proceeding. The parties entered into a so-ordered stipulation granting petitioner final judgment of possession and warrant of eviction, with execution stayed to allow respondents to vacate. The court noted in consideration of the date as final, petitioner waived the right to seek use and occupancy for Feb. 2, 2016 through Jan. 2, 2017. Rahima Kabir, one of the signatories to the stipulation, was the former premises’ owner, but now moved to vacate same alleging fraud in that petitioner allegedly fraudulently induced her to transfer ownership of the premises to it in 2016. The court noted the allegation was unenforceable and violated the statute of frauds. Also, it found HETPA did not apply, and even if it did, a violation would render the transaction voidable, not void. Also, as respondent waived the affirmative claim of title by signing the stipulation and obtaining a waiver of 12 months of use and occupancy, and received the benefit of the bargain, she may not claim same now, finding no fraud resulting from the stipulation’s signing. Thus, as Kabir did not demonstrate the stipulation was the product of fraud, there was no basis to vacate, denying the motion.