Hilder v. St. Peter

Supreme Court of Vermont · 1984 · Property

Propertyimplied warranty of habitabilitylandlord-tenantdamagesrent abatementresidential leasehabitabilitysafe clean fit for human habitation

Facts

Plaintiff rented a residential apartment from defendants, paid all rent due, and gave a $50 damage deposit that was never returned. The apartment had numerous serious defects, including a broken window, no front door key, a clogged and mechanically inoperable toilet, inoperable bathroom light and outlet, leaking water pipes that caused plaster to fall, raw sewage odors from a broken pipe, and electrical service for the furnace tied to plaintiff's breaker box despite defendants' agreement to furnish heat. Plaintiff repeatedly notified defendant Stuart St. Peter of these conditions, he promised repairs, but the defects were never corrected during the tenancy. Because of the conditions, plaintiff made some repairs herself, stopped using the back bedroom, and endured substantial inconvenience and discomfort.

Issue

Whether Vermont recognizes an implied warranty of habitability in residential leases, and if so, whether a tenant who remains in possession may recover rent already paid and other damages for the landlord's breach. The case also raised whether the trial court properly calculated additional compensatory damages and whether both defendants could be held liable.

Rule

In every oral or written lease of a residential dwelling unit, whether for a term or at will, there is a nonwaivable implied warranty that the landlord will deliver and maintain throughout the tenancy premises that are safe, clean, and fit for human habitation. The warranty covers latent and patent defects in essential facilities, and breach is shown by defects affecting health or safety after the landlord has notice of an unknown defect and a reasonable time to repair. For breach, tenants may seek contract remedies including damages measured by the difference between the value of the dwelling as warranted and as defective, may recover for discomfort and annoyance, may withhold future rent or deduct repair costs after notice and failure to repair, and need not abandon the premises because constructive eviction is no longer required in this context.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Burlington, Maya Ortiz rents a basement apartment from Nolan Pierce on a month-to-month oral agreement. The unit’s only working heat source fails repeatedly in January, leaving indoor temperatures near freezing; Maya promptly notifies Nolan several times, but he does nothing for three weeks.

If Maya sues for breach of the landlord’s duty to provide habitable premises, which is the strongest argument in her favor?

Explanation. The majority expressly held that in any residential dwelling lease, whether oral or written, and whether for a term or at will, there is a nonwaivable implied warranty that the landlord will deliver and maintain throughout the tenancy premises that are safe, clean, and fit for human habitation. Heat is an essential facility, and the warranty continues during the tenancy.