Teller v. McCoy

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia · 1978 · Property

PropertyLandlord-TenantImplied Warranty of Habitabilityresidential leasehabitabilityimplied warrantymutually dependent covenantsconstructive eviction

Facts

The case arose from a dispute over whether a landlord's failure to maintain residential rental premises in a fit and habitable condition violated duties owed to tenants and what remedies followed from that breach. The certified questions asked about the existence and waiver of an implied warranty of habitability, whether that warranty and rent were mutually dependent, whether breach was a defense to rent and unlawful detainer, and what damages and remedies were available. The opinion does not set out detailed property-specific facts, but addresses the issues in the context of residential tenancies in West Virginia. The court relied on the common-law background and on legislative enactments concerning fire, health, housing, and building standards.

Issue

Whether West Virginia recognizes an implied warranty of habitability in written or oral residential leases, whether that warranty is mutually dependent with the tenant's obligation to pay rent, and what remedies and defenses are available when the landlord materially breaches that warranty. The court also addressed whether the warranty can be waived and how damages should be measured.

Rule

In every written or oral lease of residential premises, there is an implied warranty that the landlord will deliver the dwelling unit and surrounding premises at the start of the tenancy in a fit and habitable condition and will thereafter maintain them in that condition. Because a residential lease is to be treated and construed as a contract, the landlord's warranty of habitability and the tenant's covenant to pay rent are mutually dependent. A material breach rendering the premises uninhabitable permits contract remedies, including damages and rescission; the breach is a defense to actions for rent and unlawful detainer; damages are measured by the difference between the fair market value of the premises as warranted and their fair rental value in defective condition, plus proven annoyance and inconvenience; and waiver of the implied warranty is against public policy.

🔒

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 Columbus, Ohio, Dana Ortiz rented a basement apartment from Lewis Kline on a month-to-month oral agreement. On the first day of the tenancy, raw sewage backed up into the shower and kitchen sink, and the condition continued for weeks after Dana notified Lewis.

If Dana is later sued for unpaid rent, which is the strongest argument under the governing doctrine?

Explanation. The majority held that every written or oral lease of residential premises includes an implied warranty that the landlord will deliver the dwelling and surrounding premises in a fit and habitable condition and maintain them that way. Because the warranty and rent covenant are mutually dependent, a material breach may be raised as a defense to rent. The rule does not depend on a written lease or an express repair promise.