Landlord and Tenant Law: Implied Warranty of Habitability
| Publication year | 1990 |
| Pages | 9 |
| Citation | Vol. 3 No. 1 Pg. 9 |
David J. Winterton, J.
The State Appellate Court recently reviewed a case of a defendant who was appealing a judgment for back rent and an order to restore possession of a premises to the plaintiff. The defendant has counter-claimed with the defense of breach of implied warranty of habitability. Utah does not recognize the theory of implied warranty of habitability. The defendant's appeal was denied with two judges affirming the lower court's decision. The Judge writing the opinion stated that Utah's landlord-tenant rules are "exceptionally senseless and anachronistic rules of medieval common law.''[1] He further stated that "Establishing an implied warranty of habitability in this case would require us to weigh the conflicting interests of lessors and tenants, and would undoubtedly have an economic impact that we are unable to fully access from the information before us."[2] Since the above stated ruling, a number of newspaper articles have been written suggesting that the Legislature take the appropriate steps to protect the rights of the tenant. It is important to know the major interests of the lessors and tenants, and review some of the practical application of the theory of implied warranty of habitability.
I. BACKGROUND OF LANDLORD-TENANT LAW
In the old English feudal society, the landlords established a system whereby land would be held in fee with devisable rights. The right of possession was one of the most treasured rights in this agrarian society. Before taking possession, a tenant would inspect the premises for defects. When the tenant signed his tenancy (lease), the tenant 11 usually had possession of the property "as I is" absent any written agreement to the contrary. If a defect was later discovered in the property, the tenant not only had the ability to do the repairs, but had the responsibility to remedy the defect to avoid waste.[3]
As our social-economic system and real estate construction became more complex, the courts started to create exceptions to the old English property law theory. Smith v. Marrable[4] was one of the landmark cases establishing an exception to the old rule. This was an English case in which a tenant leased a furnished residence for a short tenancy. The courts concluded, that since the tenants were renting the premises for a short term and did not have time to inspect the property prior to occupancy, it was the landlord's responsibility to repair the premises and to have the premises ready for immediate occupancy.
The laws continued to evolve with the changes in our society. The courts began to recognize a lease not only as a right of possession under property law, but as a legal binding contract with certain contractual obligations.[5] This legal interpretation effected the lessee liability to pay rent. Under the property law approach, the tenant is liable for rent based upon his possession of the property, whereas under the contract approach, a tenant is liable to pay rent based upon the lessor's compliance with the contract.[6] If the contract did not contain a provision requiring the landlord to repair or maintain the premises, the liability to pay rent was not dependent upon the condition of the premises.
In the 1960s, the courts concluded that our existing social policies established by the legislature rendered the old common law obsolete and required that an implied warranty of habitability should be established in all residential leases.[7] The courts concluded that if there were local housing codes or ordinances requiring a certain level of quality for the occupants, there must be an implied contractual covenant that the premises were in compliance with the local housing codes or ordinances.
The state of Utah does not have a housing authority requiring landlords to maintain a certain level of quality in their residential housing. A couple of towns and a county have enacted their own housing authorities regulating residential housing. Due to the lack of regulations, the courts do not have the authority to imply a warranty of habitability throughout the state of Utah. The Utah Courts have required the landlords to use a reasonable standard of care in maintaining their premises to avoid harm to the tenants.[8] As a consequence, Utah has become known as a Caveat Lessee' state.
II. DEFINITION OF WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY
Warranty of habitability is a covenant by the [9]... landlord of a dwelling unit, [who] impliedly [or expressly] warrants that the premises is fit for habitation at the time of letting and will remain so during [the] term of tenancy."[10]
There are three different interpretations of the phrase "fit for habitation:" a) If the premises is not in compliance with the current...
To continue reading
Request your trial