A lease is a contract between the lessor and lessee. In this case, Larry Landlord is the lessor and Roger Renter is the lessee. Under the lease agreement, both parties have respective rights, obligations, and duties. The lease agreement at issue is a residential lease. The old common law rule provided that lessees assumed the property “as is” and that the lessor made no promises or guarantees as to the condition of the property (Dukeminier, et al., 2010, p. 482). This common law approach proved problematic because it both discouraged landlords from making repairs while the tenant was in possession, and at the same time, discouraged tenants from undertaking repairs if the lease term was soon to expire (Dukeminier, et al., 2010, p. 482). Current law addressing landlord-tenant issues attempts to reach a middle ground between the often-competing interests of the landlord and the tenant.
Landlord Rights and Responsibilities
The covenant of quiet enjoyment imposes a duty on the landlord to ensure that the premises are appropriate and suitable for the purposes of which they were leased (Reste Realty Corporation v. Cooper, 1969). In Reste Realty Corporation, the tenant made a number of complaints to the landlord about a flooding problem in the basement of the leased premises (Reste Realty Corporation v. Cooper, 1969). Water kept leaking into the basement and persistently got worse over time. Despite these complaints, the landlord took action to fix the problem. The court found that the landlord breached the covenant of quiet enjoyment because the landlord’s failure to fix the flooding in the basement was a substantial interference with the tenant’s enjoyment of the leased premises (Reste Realty Corporation v. Cooper, 1969). As most tenants would find that a consistent flooding problem in a basement substantially interfered with their enjoyment of the property, the landlord’s failure to correct the problem, after the tenant gave notice to the landlord that a problem existed, would constitute a breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment.
There is also an underlying assumption that any residential buildings that a landlord leases to a tenant will be habitable and livable. Under this implied warranty of habitability, it reflects the idea that tenants who take possession of residential leased premises expect that these premises will be, at a minimum, safe, sanitary, and comfortable (Hilder v. St. Peter, 1984). The standard is not a high bar for landlords to meet. Habitability simply means that the leased residential premises will be minimally fit for human habitation.
Tenant Rights and Responsibilities
One of the doctrines that applies to tenants in possession of leased premises is the duty not to commit waste. A tenant commits waste, and therefore breaches this duty, if the tenant makes substantial changes to the leased premises that “would change characteristic appearance” of the premises (Pross v. Excelsior Cleaning & Dyeing Company, 1919, pp. 179-180). Relevant considerations as to whether a tenant committed a substantial alteration that would amount to waste include whether the alteration is permanent, the degree of impact on the overall value and functionality of the premises (Dukeminier, et al., 2010, p. 505).
A tenant has a number of options if a landlord breaches the covenant of quiet enjoyment. The tenant has two remedies for such a breach: a) under a constructive eviction theory, end the lease, ceasing liability to pay further rent, and sue the landlord for damages, or b) stay on the leased premises, keep paying rent, and sue the landlord for damages. A tenant also has a number of potential remedies if the landlord breaches the implied warranty of habitability. The tenant can choose between three options: a) leave the premises, end the lease, and sue the landlord for damages, b) stay on the premises, keep paying rent, and sue the landlord for damages, or c) stay on the premises and stop paying rent to the landlord.
Since the lease between Larry Landlord and Roger Renter concerns a residential apartment, there is an underlying implied warranty of habitability. The roof has a major leak. Roger asked Larry numerous times about fixing the leak in the roof. Although Larry assured Roger that he would fix the leak, Larry took no further remedial action. Instead, the leak became worse due to inattention and the water from the leaking roof damaged Roger’s clothing, furniture, and other personal items. An apartment unit with a major leak in the roof is not fit for basic human habitation. By failing to fix the leaking roof problem after receiving repeated requests, Larry breached the implied warranty of habitability.
Duty of Mitigation
Most states will not find that a tenant is under a duty to mitigate damages by repairing a condition before it enlarges into an even bigger problem if the tenant notified the landlord of the problem condition. At least one court has founds that if the landlord promises the tenant to perform repairs, the landlord is under a duty to see these repairs through. In Robinson v. Tate, the tenant was entitled to rely on the landlord’s promise to make repairs (Robinson v. Tate, 1950, p. 233). Because Larry Landlord promised Roger Renter that he would fix the problem of the leaking roof and failed to do so, Roger will probably not be found to have any duty to mitigate damages by undertaking repairs himself.
Eviction
Under the facts of this face, Larry Landlord cannot evict Roger Renter from the apartment. The law prohibits landlords from evicting a tenant and retaking control of the property unless the tenant abandons the premises or voluntary relinquishes the premises (Berg v. Wiley, 1978, p. 151). The current law forbids landlords from resorting to self-help remedies and in order to evict a tenant, the landlord must go through the appropriate judicial process (Berg v. Wiley, 1978, p. 151). Larry Landlord cannot evict Roger Renter because Roger did not abandon or voluntary surrender the premises. Even if Larry Landlord did want to evict Roger for a breach of the lease agreement, Larry Landlord would need to go through the proper judicial procedures and could not simple kick Roger Renter out of the apartment.
Liability
Whether the Roger Renter is liable for the damages sustained to the drywall from throwing the baseball bat is a question of state law. Roger Renter may have to pay the cost of repairing the drywall. For instance, under Wisconsin law, a tenant must pay the cost of repairs that result from negligence or misuse of the leased premises (Maryland Arms Ltd. Partnership v. Connell, 2009, p. 152). A tenant who causes damages to the premises through negligent acts must pay the cost of repairing these damages (Maryland Arms Ltd. Partnership v. Connell, 2009, p. 152). Like Wisconsin, Virginia also imposes tenant liability for negligence, recklessness, or willfulness (Allstate Insurance Co. v. Fritz, 2006, p. 320).
Roger Renter will probably be liable for the damages he caused to the drywall because he was negligent in throwing the baseball bat against the wall, which ultimately caused the damages. Throwing a baseball against the wall is a negligent act. Although Larry Landlord was under a duty to fix the leaking roof, Larry Landlord did not cause the damage to the drywall. Most states would find Roger Renter liable because he caused damages to the premises through a negligent act.
References
Allstate Insurance Company v. Fritz, 452 F.3d 316 (4th Cir. 2006).
Berg v. Wiley, 264 N.W.2d 145 (Minn. 1978).
Dukemenier, et al. (2010). Property. (7th ed.). New York, NY: Aspen Publishers.
Hilder v. St. Peter, 478 A.2d 202 (Vt. 1984).
Maryland Arms Ltd. Partnership v. Connell, 320 Wis.2d 147 (Wis. Ct. App. 2009).
Pross v. Excelsior Cleaning & Dyeing Company, 179 N.Y.S. 176 (Mun. Ct. 1919).
Reste Realty Corporation v. Cooper, 1969, 251 A.2d 268 (N.J. 1969).
Robinson v. Tate, 34 Tenn.App. 215 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1950).
