Imperial Colliery Co. v. Fout

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia · Property

PropertyLandlord-tenantRetaliatory evictionretaliatory evictionsummary evictionlandlord-tenanttenant defenseshabitability

Facts

Fout had leased a small house trailer lot from Imperial for about six years under a lease originally signed in 1983 for a primary period of one month, terminable by either party upon one month's notice. In February 1986, Imperial notified Fout that his lease would terminate on March 31, 1986, later voluntarily extending the date for two months. When Imperial then sued for possession in June 1986, Fout defended on the ground that the eviction was retaliation for his participation in a selective labor strike involving Milburn Colliery, which he alleged was interrelated with Imperial. Fout did not claim that his strike activity related to the condition, habitability, or other tenancy-related aspects of the leased premises.

Issue

May a residential tenant assert retaliatory eviction as a defense in a summary eviction proceeding under West Virginia law? If so, does the defense apply when the alleged retaliation is for tenant conduct unrelated to any right incidental to the tenancy, such as participation in a labor strike?

Rule

Retaliation may be asserted as a defense to a summary eviction proceeding under W.Va. Code, 55-3A-1 et seq., if the landlord's conduct is in retaliation for the tenant's exercise of a right incidental to the tenancy. The defense does not protect speech, association, or other activities unrelated to the tenant's property interest or the tenancy relationship.

🔒

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.

Leah Moreno rents a month-to-month apartment in Charleston, West Virginia, from Ridgeview Homes LLC. After Leah reports repeated sewage backups and failed smoke detectors to the county health department, Ridgeview serves a notice terminating the tenancy and then files a summary action for possession.

In the possession action, what is Leah's best argument under the governing rule?

Explanation. The majority held that retaliation may be asserted as a defense to a summary eviction proceeding when the landlord acted in response to the tenant's exercise of a right incidental to the tenancy. Complaints to health authorities about unsafe or uninhabitable conditions fall squarely within that purpose because the doctrine protects tenants who invoke habitability and health-and-safety protections. (Derived from Imperial Colliery Co. v. Fout (n.d.).)