Wade v. Jobe

Supreme Court of Utah · 1991 · Property

PropertyLandlord-TenantImplied Warranty of Habitabilityresidential leasehabitabilitycaveat emptor rejectedrent withholdingrent abatement

Facts

In 1988, Jobe rented a house from Wade and soon discovered numerous defects, including sewage and water accumulating in the basement, a foul odor, and repeated loss of hot water when sewage extinguished the water-heater flame. Wade came to the premises multiple times, pumped sewage and water onto the sidewalk, and relit the heater, but the problems persisted for months. After Jobe withheld rent until the sewage problem was permanently fixed, city inspections found the premises unsafe for human occupancy, lacking a sewer connection, and containing numerous code violations that posed substantial health and safety hazards. After Jobe moved out, Wade sued for unpaid rent, and Jobe sought an offset based on the alleged uninhabitable condition of the house.

Issue

Does Utah common law recognize an implied warranty of habitability in residential leases, and if so, may a tenant obtain rent abatement or reimbursement for breach of that warranty? Also, on the opinion's disposition, should the trial court's dismissal of the tenant's UCSPA declaratory-relief counterclaim be affirmed?

Rule

Utah recognizes a common law implied warranty of habitability in residential leases. A residential landlord warrants that leased premises are habitable at the outset of the lease term and will remain so during the tenancy; the warranty requires maintenance of bare living requirements and premises fit for human occupation, does not require perfect condition or cover tenant-caused defects, and is breached only after the landlord has actual or constructive notice of material defects and a reasonable time to repair. A tenant's duty to pay rent and the landlord's duty to provide habitable premises are dependent covenants, and if the warranty is breached, the tenant may obtain retroactive rent abatement whether or not rent was withheld; the court preferred the percentage diminution approach to calculating general damages.

🔒

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 a month-to-month apartment in Cleveland, Ohio, from Lakeview Terrace Rentals, a fictional housing company. Two weeks later, she complained that several window blinds were broken, a bedroom wall had hairline cracks, and the living room needed repainting, but the unit remained warm, dry, and fully functional.

If Nina withholds all rent and the landlord sues, which is the strongest argument under the governing rule?

Explanation. The implied warranty in residential leases requires habitable premises fit for human occupation, not perfect premises at all times. Minor deficiencies—such as malfunctioning blinds, small wall cracks, or a need for paint—do not establish breach. The rule applies to written and oral residential leases alike.