Reste Realty Corp. v. Cooper

Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1969 · Property

Propertylandlord-tenantconstructive evictionfloodinghabitabilityconstructive evictionquiet enjoymentlatent defects

Facts

Defendant leased ground-floor commercial office space in a building, and whenever it rained water repeatedly entered the offices from a defective driveway and wall area outside the leased premises. Before the second lease was executed, the landlord's agent acknowledged the problem and promised to remedy it, and defendant relied on that promise in taking the new lease, but the flooding continued and later complaints were ignored after the agent died. The flooding disrupted meetings and training sessions, damaged property, and at times left inches of water in the premises. After a severe flood on December 20, 1961 made the premises unusable for a major meeting, defendant gave notice and vacated ten days later.

Issue

Did the landlord's failure to correct recurrent flooding constitute a breach that amounted to constructive eviction, despite lease language that the tenant accepted the premises in their present condition and agreed to keep them in repair? If so, did the tenant waive that claim by not vacating sooner?

Rule

Any act or omission of the landlord, or of one acting under the landlord's authority or legal right, that renders the premises substantially unsuitable for the leased purpose or seriously interferes with the tenant's beneficial enjoyment of the premises breaches the covenant of quiet enjoyment and constitutes constructive eviction. A tenant does not assume latent defects not reasonably apparent to an ordinary prospective tenant, and present-day fair treatment requires an implied warranty against latent defects remediable by the landlord, whether inside or outside the demised premises. A tenant must vacate within a reasonable time after the right to claim constructive eviction arises, and reasonableness depends on the circumstances.

🔒

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.

Nina Patel leased first-floor studio space in Newark, New Jersey from Harbor Square Properties, LLC for use as an accounting training center. After most heavy rains, water from a cracked exterior retaining wall owned and controlled by the landlord seeped into the training room, forcing cancellations several times and damaging paper files; despite repeated notice, the landlord did nothing. After a storm left standing water throughout the main room, Nina moved out a week later.

If the landlord sues for rent accruing after Nina left, which is the strongest argument for Nina?

Explanation. The majority rule is that any act or omission chargeable to the landlord that renders the premises substantially unsuitable for the leased purpose or seriously interferes with the tenant's beneficial enjoyment breaches the covenant of quiet enjoyment and constitutes constructive eviction. Recurrent flooding tied to rainstorms can qualify even if not continuous every day. The defect may be outside the demised premises if it is under the landlord's control and causes the interference.