An Example of a FIRAC Analysis

What follows is a hypothetical judicial opinion. A judicial opinion is a FIRAC analysis prepared by a court to explain its decision. Be aware, however, that while the structure of a judicial opinion generally parallels the approach I have described, there will differences, particularly in phrasing and format. The better you understand the FIRAC steps and sub-steps and their relationship to each other, the easier it will be to pick them out regardless of how they are phrased or where they appear in an opinion.

Here is an outline of the FIRAC steps and sub-steps to refresh your memory and use as a reference:

”F” — The first step is to ascertain the Facts of the case. ”I” — The second step is to identify a law Issue raised by the facts. ”R” — The third step is to find an accurate statement of the Rule. ”A” — The fourth step is to Apply the rule to the facts. (1) Identify one element issue. (2) Use one or more legal reasoning methods to compare the element to the facts and determine whether the element is satisfied. (3) Repeat (1) and (2) for each element. ”C” — The final step is to determine the Conclusion to the issue.

Can you identify each of the FIRAC steps and sub-steps in the following “opinion?”

*************************

Storr v. D’Ing

Plaintiff Lisa Storr wanted to start a business. Storr found a vacant building owned by Defendant, Bill D’Ing, and negotiated a lease to rent it for one year. According to the terms of the lease, the building could be used to conduct any legal business but could not be used as a dwelling. Plaintiff agreed to pay rent of $1,000 per month plus a security deposit of $2,000.

Plaintiff claims the security deposit charged by Defendant exceeds the maximum amount permitted by Section 554.602 of the Michigan Landlord-Tenant Relationship Act. That section provides:

A landlord may require a security deposit for each rental unit. A security deposit . . . shall not exceed 1½ months’ rent.

The dispositive question is whether Defendant’s building is a “rental unit.” Section 554.601(a) of the Act defines “rental unit” as “a structure or part thereof used as a home, residence, or sleeping unit by a single person or household unit, or any grounds, or other facilities or area promised for the use of a residential tenant and includes, but without limitation, apartment units, boarding houses, rooming houses, mobile home spaces, and single and 2-family dwellings.” This definition of “rental unit” only encompasses structures, grounds, facilities, and areas used for residential purposes. The listed examples of “rental units” includes “single and 2-family dwellings.” [Emphasis added.]

Plaintiff leased Defendant’s building for the purpose of operating a business therein, not for residential purposes. Indeed, Defendant expressly prohibited the use of the building as a residence by including a term in the lease which provided that Plaintiff could not use the building as a dwelling.

I therefore hold that Defendant’s building is not a “rental unit.” Plaintiff’s claim is denied.

*************************

ANSWERS:

Facts:

Plaintiff Lisa Storr wanted to start a business. Storr found a vacant building owned by Defendant, Bill D’Ing, and negotiated a lease to rent it for one year. According to the terms of the lease, the building could be used to conduct any legal business but could not be used as a dwelling. Plaintiff agreed to pay rent of $1,000 per month plus a security deposit of $2,000.

Issue (law issue):

Plaintiff claims the security deposit charged by Defendant exceeds the maximum amount permitted by Section 554.602 of the Michigan Landlord-Tenant Relationship Act. [Although not phrased as a question, this sentence states the law issue: Did Bill D’Ing violate Section 554.602 of the Michigan Landlord-Tenant Relationship Act?]

Rule:

“A landlord may require a security deposit for each rental unit. A security deposit . . . shall not exceed 1½ months’ rent.” [This is a quotation of the text of Section 554.602.]

Application:

Element issue: The dispositive question is whether Defendant’s building is a “rental unit.” [“Rental unit” is one element of the law. A question that asks whether the facts (Defendant’s building) come within the meaning of an element is an element issue.]

Legal reasoning method – using a definition: Section 554.601(a) of the Act defines “rental unit” as “a structure or part thereof used as a home, residence, or sleeping unit by a single person or household unit, or any grounds, or other facilities or area promised for the use of a residential tenant and includes, but without limitation, apartment units, boarding houses, rooming houses, mobile home spaces, and single and 2-family dwellings.” This definition of “rental unit” only encompasses structures, grounds, facilities, and areas used for residential purposes. The listed examples of “rental units” includes “single and 2-family dwellings.” [Emphasis added.]

Comparing the definition of the element to the facts: Plaintiff leased Defendant’s building for the purpose of operating a business therein, not for residential purposes. Indeed, Defendant expressly prohibited the use of the building as a residence by including a term in the lease which provided that Plaintiff could not use the building as a dwelling.

Conclusion to the element issue: I therefore hold that Defendant’s building is not a “rental unit.” [The court concluded the element “rental unit” was not satisfied.]

Conclusion (to the law issue):

Plaintiff’s claim is denied. [In other words, Bill D’Ing did not violate Section 554.602 of the Michigan Landlord-Tenant Relationship Act. That law only covers the lease of a “rental unit.” Since the building Defendant leased was not a “rental unit,” his conduct was not covered by the law.]

BACK to the overview of the FIRAC approach.

Continue to Section 1.2