Normally the bankruptcy filing has nothing to do with whether or not the tenant has paid his rent. A landlord does not have the right to evict a tenant simply because the tenant filed chapter 7 unless that is part of the lease. The terms of the lease determine if the tenant will be evicted. If the tenant pays the rent, he should not be evicted.
Yes, if the tenant is not included in the Bankruptcy creditor list
Absolutely - happens every day.
Not unless the landlord has followed your state's laws regarding disconnection of utilities for nonpayment. Any landlord who disconnects the tenant's utilities (except temporarily for maintenance purposes) without following these laws will be guilty of constructive eviction. A constructively evicted tenant can sue the landlord for moving expenses and damages.
If the lease agreement states that the tenant should switch the account to their name and pay the gas bill then the tenant should pay the landlord back. If there was no written agreement, or understanding, that the tenant pay the gas bill then you could try filing a complaint with the town, housing court, landlord-tenant agency, etc., if the landlord simply stopped providing heat and hot water. If the understanding was that the tenant pay their gas, they never switched the account to their name and the landlord didn't notice for seven months, then the tenant should start paying the gas bill and hope the landlord doesn't sue them for all the prior gas charges.
Bankruptcies don't cover issues regarding rent. The renting of property, especially residential, is not an extension of credit-- it's the right to live on the property. A tenant filing bankruptcy still has to pay rent.
It might be best to ask the Housing Authority that issued the voucher. Bankruptcy has nothing to do with the tenant. As far as the foreclosure, it depends on what stage the foreclosure is in. Until the foreclosure sale happens, the tenant owes the rent to the landlord.
You need to check your lease. If you're landlord is responsible for cutting the grass and other landscaping maitanence than yes you can sue the landlord. But if you are responsible for cutting the grass and plowing the drive than no.
See answer to related question, "Can a tenant sue a landlord for trespass?"
The landlord's bankruptcy has nothing to do with the tenant. The tenant still owes the rent.
The landlord could sue the decedent's estate.
Yes. The tenant should be considered the landlord of the sub-tenant. Therefore, he can evict, just like any landlord.
Yes, a landlord in Maryland can sue for future rent if the tenant breaks the lease agreement. However, the landlord has a duty to mitigate damages by making reasonable efforts to find a new tenant. If the landlord finds a new tenant, the tenant who broke the lease agreement will only be responsible for the rent until the new tenant moves in.
I can't answer definitely without more information. Basically, if the tenant did something wrong, then the landlord may very well be in a position to sue to be compensated for this wrong.
Landlord can keep deposit and sue tenant's estate if damages to the apartment was done outside of normal wear and tear.
Bankruptcy does not relieve a tenant from paying his rent: it's not a debt. Rent is due in advance of the rental period and is not an extension of credit. Oh, and a landlord cannot evict a tenant simply because he filed for bankruptcy.
Usually it means that you can't sue your tenant in regular court, you have to go thru the bankruptcy court. It really shouldn't mean much for you, tho, your tenant will need to keep paying rent, or move out.
If the tenant's health issues are caused by the landlord's violation of health and building codes, then the tenant can sue the landlord. The landlord's insurance would normally get involved at this point, as opposed to being sued directly. If the tenant has special health needs that the landlord isn't meeting, then too bad, move. As long as the health and building codes are being complied with, tenants cannot force a landlord to take extraordinary measures.
Only if it's within the statute of limitations.
It depends. If the sub-tenant was there by right and the landlord allowed a sub-lease, then that's a situation where nothing has gone wrong. If the landlord is suing, it sounds instead like the tenant did not have the right to sublet and in that case they are responsible to complete the lease and the sub-tenant may not have had the right to be there.