Landlord tenant: Quiet Enjoyment and Implied Warranty of Habitability Flashcards
Minjak Co. v. Randolph
Minjak Co. v. Randolph
Landlord (P) v. Tenant (D)
N.Y. App. Div., 528 N.Y.S.2d 554 (1988)
NATURE OF CASE: Appeal from reversal of an award in tenant’s favor of rent abatement and punitive damages in a landlord’s action for nonpayment of rent.
FACT SUMMARY: After Randolph (D) and Kikuchi (D) withheld their rent due to the condition of the loft space they were leasing, Minjak Co. (P), the landlord, brought this action for nonpayment, and Randolph (D) and Kikuchi (D) counterclaimed for breach of warranty of habitability.
RULE OF LAW
A tenant may assert the defense of constructive eviction for the nonpayment of rent, even if he or she has abandoned only a portion of the demised premises due to the landlord’s acts.
FACTS: Randolph (D) and Kikuchi (D) leased a loft in a building owned by Minjak Co. (P). Two-thirds of the loft space was used as a music studio by Kikuchi (D), and the remainder of the space was used as their residence. At one point, water poured into the bedroom and closets from the tenant’s loft above them. After Minjak (P) started construction on the building, huge clouds of dust came pouring into the loft, settling everywhere. Kikuchi’s (D) musical equipment had to be covered at all times to protect it from the dust. When Randolph (D) and Kikuchi (D) withheld their rent payments, Minjak (P) commenced a summary nonpayment proceeding against them. Randolph (D) and Kikuchi (D) counterclaimed for breach of warranty of habitability. After trial, the jury awarded Randolph (D) and Kikuchi (D) a rent abatement as compensatory damages on the theory of constructive eviction, along with punitive damages. The appellate term reversed. This appeal followed.
ISSUE: May a tenant assert the defense of constructive eviction for the nonpayment of rent, even if he or she has abandoned only a portion of the demised premises due to the landlord’s acts?
HOLDING AND DECISION: (Memorandum Decision) Yes. A tenant may assert the defense of constructive eviction for the nonpayment of rent, even if he or she has abandoned only a portion of the demised premises due to the landlord’s acts. The evidence fully supported a finding that Randolph (D) and Kikuchi (D) had to abandon the music studio portion of the loft due to the Minjak’s (P) wrongful acts. Moreover, the record supports the jury’s finding of morally culpable conduct allowing punitive damages in light of the dangerous and offensive manner in which the landlord permitted the construction work to be performed. Accordingly, the award of punitive damages is sustained.
ANALYSIS
The appellate term held that the doctrine of constructive eviction could not provide a defense to the nonpayment proceeding because Randolph (D) and Kikuchi (D) had not abandoned possession of the demised premises. However, the appellate division found that compelling considerations of social policy and fairness dictated the rule it applied here. Punitive damages may be awarded in breach of warranty of habitability cases where the landlord’s actions were intentional and malicious.
Quicknotes
ABATEMENT A decrease or lessening of something; in equity, a suspension or dismissal of a cause of action.
CONSTRUCTIVE EVICTION An action, whereby the landlord renders the property unsuitable for occupancy, either in whole or in part, so the tenant is forced to leave the premises.
PUNITIVE DAMAGES Damages exceeding the actual injury suffered for the purposes of punishment, deterrence, and comfort to plaintiff.
WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY An implied warranty owed by a landlord to a tenant to provide leased premises is properly maintained in a habitable condition prior to leasing the premises and during the duration of the lease.
Javins v First National Realty Corp.
Javins v. First National Realty Corp.
Tenant (D) v. Landlord (P)
428 F.2d 1071 (D.C. Cir. 1970)
NATURE OF CASE: Appeal from actions to recover past-due rents.
FACT SUMMARY: Javins (D) refused to pay rent due to numerous housing code violations.
RULE OF LAW
Leases of urban dwelling units contain an implied warranty of habitability, and breach of this warranty gives rise to the usual remedies for breach of contract.
FACTS: Javins (D) and other tenants refused to pay rent due to approximately 1,500 housing code violations in the building. The landlord, First National Realty (First National) (P), brought suit to recover possession and past-due rent. The trial court refused Javins’s (D) offer of proof as to the violations, finding that their presence was not a defense. Judgment was rendered for First National (P).
ISSUE: Do leases of urban dwelling units contain an implied warranty of habitability, the breach of which gives rise to the usual remedies for breach of contract?
HOLDING AND DECISION: (Wright, J.) Yes. Leases of urban dwelling units contain an implied warranty of habitability, and breach of this warranty gives rise to the usual remedies for breach of contract. The old common-law rule that the lessor is not obligated to effectuate repairs unless he covenants to do so in the lease is outdated and must be rejected. The value of the lease to a tenant is that it gives him a place to live; a home suitable for occupation. Because a lease contract specifies a time period during which the tenant has a right to use the apartment for shelter, there is a legitimate expectancy that the apartment be fit for habitation during the term of the contract. The common law must recognize the landlord’s obligation to keep the premises in a habitable condition. Beyond the common law, the district’s housing code also requires an implied warranty of habitability. The code establishes the standards for such housing and delineates the penalties for violations. The code specifically provides that every premise be maintained and kept in a state of repair to provide decent living conditions for the occupants. In the instant case, the landlord sued for possession for nonpayment of rent. However, the tenant’s obligation to pay is dependent on the landlord’s performance of his obligations, including maintaining the premises in a habitable condition. The case is remanded to determine what violations in the code existed during the time when the tenants withheld rent. The trial court must also determine if the tenant’s obligation to pay rent was suspended, in full or in part, by the landlord’s breach of the implied warranty. Should it be determined that any rental obligation exists, no judgment for possession shall be entered unless the tenant refuses to pay such obligation.
ANALYSIS
The implied warranty of habitability is found to be coextensive with the requirements of the housing code in some jurisdictions. In others it is mere evidence of breach of warranty. The breach of one covenant by the landlord excuses the tenant’s counter-performance (breaches of mutually dependent covenants). The lease is treated as a contract rather than as a conveyance of real property under these theories. Some states require that the rent withheld be placed in an escrow account pending repairs.
Quicknotes
BREACH OF CONTRACT Unlawful failure by a party to perform its obligations pursuant to contract.
REMEDY Compensation for violation of a right or for injuries sustained.
IMPLIED WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY A warranty implied by a landlord that the premises are suitable, and will remain suitable, for habitation.
WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY An implied warranty owed by a landlord to a tenant to provide leased premises is properly maintained in a habitable condition prior to leasing the premises and during the duration of the lease.
Express and Implied Terms
Landlord-tenant relationship is governed by partly express terms.
The landlord-tenant relationship is also governed by implied terms.
One important term implied in landlord tenant relationship is common law statute is covenant of quiet enjoyment, which the landlord promises not to disturb the tenants quiet enjoyment of the property
Actual eviction
The landlord physically barring the tenant from the building for failure to pay rent
partial eviction
a breach of the lease and provides the tenant ample justification to move out before the end of the release term. The tenant will not be liable for rent after moving out
Constructive eviction
occurs when the landlord interferes with the tenants quiet enjoyment of the premises
The defense to constructive eviction allows the tenant to stop rent payments and move out before the end of the lease term.
Measure for damages for breach
tenants suffering a breach of the covenent of quiet enjoyment are entitled to damages
implied warranty of habitabiity
obligates landlords to provide premises that are safe and suitable for habitation.
Tenants’ duties to other tenants
tenants are obligated to not distrub other tenants quiet enjoyment
Landlords liability for acts of other tenants
rule is the landlord is not responsible for other tenants unless the lease specifically includes an obligation to do so
key points
The covenant of quiet enjoyment is implied in every lease if there is no express covenant.
2. The covenant protects the tenant against interference with possession by the landlord, the landlord’s successors, and paramount title holders.
3. An actual eviction results when the tenant is dispossessed from part or all of the leased premises.
4. The parties may expressly agree to modify, limit, or exclude the covenant of quiet enjoyment.
5. Remedies for breach of quiet enjoyment consist of recovery of possession, termination of the lease, damages, and rent abatement.
Strict liabilty v negligence
If a landlord can sue more or less than the rent owed, the question will be based on tort liabilty for the tenant injuires
damages for IIED
tenanst can recover from a landlord violation of statutory duties and implied warranty of habiabilty
on
