The Landlord/tenant Warranty of Habitability and the Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment
| Publication year | 1992 |
| Pages | 1159 |
| Citation | Vol. 21 No. 6 Pg. 1159 |
1992, June, Pg. 1159. The Landlord/Tenant Warranty Of Habitability and the Covenant Of Quiet Enjoyment
In the 1960s and 1970s, courts and legislatures across the country were introducing significant changes into the legal relations between landlords and tenants. Through the recognition of an implied warranty of habitability, tenants were given rights to minimum standards of quality and repair when renting a home or apartment.(fn1)
The failure by the landlord to maintain these standards could be addressed by the tenant through a variety of remedies. In Colorado, however, the warranty of habitability concept was stopped dead when it was rejected by the Colorado Supreme Court in Blackwell v. Del-Bosco.(fn2) Nevertheless, decisions since the 1976 Blackwell case have granted tenants important new rights. Further, the recent Court of Appeals decision in Bedell v. Los Zapatistas(fn3) may have put Colorado back into the national mainstream regarding rights to habitability.
While asserting the authority of Blackwell, the Bedell court nonetheless recognized another concept also established by the Colorado Supreme Court. This concept was the covenant of quiet enjoyment ("covenant"). Under the covenant, tenants are entitled to redress if they can show a "disturbance of possession which renders the premises unfit for the purpose for which they were leased."(fn4) In Bedell, the remedy endorsed was an abatement of the tenant's rent by an amount corresponding to the percentage by which the apartment's value was diminished due to the landlord's failure to repair.
The court's remedy was an application of § 11.1 of the Restatement (Second) of Property ("Restatement"), which simply says that a court is to look at the "fair rental value" of the premises prior to their deterioration or injury, and then again after the deterioration. The difference between the two values should be converted to a ratio or percentage. The result establishes the amount of rent abatement to which the tenant is entitled, either by way of setoff prior to payment or damages after the tenant has paid rent.
The situation in Bedell was a claim for damages. The tenant had rented a house in Fort Lupton for four and one-half years. During that time, the house suffered a steady deterioration. There were heating and plumbing problems, and a section of the ceiling had collapsed. The tenant finally moved out. The landlord then filed suit against the tenant for rent not paid during the concluding months of the tenancy. The tenant counterclaimed, asserting the rent should have been abated for the vast majority of the tenancy. The counterclaim asked for damages in the amount of the resulting overpaid rent.(fn5)
The district court found that the landlord had breached the covenant of quiet enjoyment by failing to repair the house. However, the court only awarded damages in an amount that set off the unpaid rent owed the landlord. On the tenant's appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed, indicating that the district court needed to apply § 11.1 and make specific findings as to the rental value of the property and the extent to which that value diminished as the property deteriorated. Significantly, the opinion concluded by reiterating that there is no warranty of habitability in Colorado pursuant to Blackwell.(fn6)
The opinion in Bedell has developed the case law in two significant areas. The first deals with the standard by which a breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment is to be measured. The second defines the possible remedies for such a breach.
Two years after its decision in Blackwell, the Colorado Supreme Court reiterated, in Western Stock Center v. Sevit, Inc.,(fn7) its longstanding determination that there was a covenant of quiet enjoyment owed by a landlord to a tenant. The covenant, which was said to be implied in every lease, was breached by
The covenant also could be broken by a disturbance of the lessee's possession "which deprives the lessee of the beneficial enjoyment of the premises, causing him to abandon them."(fn9)any disturbance of a lessee's possession by his lessor which renders the premises unfit for occupancy for the purpose for which they were leased.(fn8)
In 1983 and...
To continue reading
Request your trial