Kline v. Burns

Supreme Court of New Hampshire · Property

PropertyLandlord and TenantImplied Warranty of Habitabilityresidential leasehabitabilityhousing coderentoffset

Facts

The Klines orally rented residential premises at 26 Tanner Court to Burns and at 28 Tanner Court to Daggett, creating tenancies at will at $50 per month. City building and electrical inspectors jointly inspected both premises in February 1969 and found building code violations, some of which had existed for a long time, and the landlords were put on notice of those violations. The trial court found that by February 1969 there were definite building code violations, though the exact condition at the inception of the tenancies was disputed. Despite those conditions, the trial court awarded the landlords unpaid rent for August through October 1969 and dismissed Burns's claim to recover rent he had already paid.

Issue

Whether, in a residential lease, violations and defective conditions affecting habitability are legally determinative of the parties' rights so that a landlord's obligation to provide a habitable dwelling may support tenant remedies, including damages or offset against rent. More specifically, whether New Hampshire should continue to apply traditional common-law landlord-tenant rules or recognize an implied warranty of habitability in apartment dwellings.

Rule

In the rental of an apartment as a dwelling unit, whether by written or oral lease, for a term or at will, the landlord impliedly warrants that the apartment is habitable and fit for living. At the inception of the rental there must be no latent defects in facilities vital to residential use, and those essential facilities must remain during the tenancy in a condition that makes the property livable. A breach exists when a defect renders the premises unsafe or unsanitary and thus unfit for living therein; if the breach is material or substantial, the tenant's damages are the difference between the agreed rent and the fair rental value of the premises in their defective condition, and the tenant may sue for breach or offset damages against the landlord's rent claim.

🔒

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 Manchester, New Hampshire, Nora Ellis orally rents a basement apartment from Devon Pike on a month-to-month basis. Two weeks after moving in, she discovers that the unit's furnace exhaust is improperly vented, causing dangerous fumes to collect indoors, and Devon sues her for the full next month's rent after she withholds part of it.

Which statement best describes Nora's strongest argument?

Explanation. The majority held that in the rental of an apartment as a dwelling unit, whether by written or oral lease, for a term or at will, the landlord impliedly warrants that the apartment is habitable and fit for living. A tenant may institute an action for breach or offset damages against the landlord's rent claim. But rent is not automatically eliminated; the tenant must show a material or substantial breach rendering the premises unsafe, unsanitary, or unfit for living.