Blackett v. Olanoff
358 N.E.2d 817 (1977)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A landlord breaches the implied covenant of quiet enjoyment, constituting a constructive eviction, if they fail to control the acts of another tenant when the disturbance is a natural and probable consequence of the landlord's leasing decision and the landlord has the legal ability to control the disruptive condition.
Facts:
- The landlords leased apartments to several residential tenants.
- The landlords also leased nearby premises to other parties for the operation of a cocktail lounge.
- The lounge's lease stipulated that entertainment must be conducted so that it could not be heard by and would not disturb the apartment residents.
- The lounge consistently played loud, amplified music late at night, from 9:30 PM until 1:30 or 2:00 AM, multiple nights a week.
- The noise was described as 'unbelievably loud, incessant, raucous, and penetrating,' which interfered with the tenants' sleep and conversation.
- The residential tenants repeatedly complained to the landlords about the disruptive noise.
- The landlords made some attempts to address the complaints with the lounge operators, but the noise problem persisted.
- Due to the continuous, unabated noise, each of the residential tenants vacated their apartments.
Procedural Posture:
- The landlords initiated consolidated actions for rent against their former tenants in a Massachusetts trial court.
- The tenants asserted constructive eviction as an affirmative defense.
- The trial judge found in favor of the tenants, entering judgment for each tenant.
- The landlords, as appellants, appealed the judgments of the trial court.
- The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, the state's highest court, transferred the appeals to itself for a final decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a landlord violate residential tenants' implied covenant of quiet enjoyment by failing to control excessive noise from a commercial tenant when the landlord has the contractual right to control the noise and its creation was a foreseeable consequence of the commercial lease?
Opinions:
Majority - Wilkins, J.
Yes, a landlord violates the implied covenant of quiet enjoyment under these circumstances. The court held that a landlord's intent is not the controlling factor; rather, it is the landlord's conduct. A breach of the covenant occurs when a disturbance is the natural and probable consequence of a landlord's actions, such as leasing adjacent property for a use known to create noise, and the landlord has the ability to control the condition but fails to do so. Here, the potential for disturbance was apparent, and the landlords had a contractual right in the lounge's lease to control the noise levels. By failing to effectively exercise this control despite numerous complaints, the landlords allowed a condition to persist that amounted to a constructive eviction, relieving the tenants of their obligation to pay rent.
Analysis:
This decision significantly expands the scope of a landlord's responsibility under the covenant of quiet enjoyment, moving beyond the traditional rule that a landlord is not liable for the acts of third parties, including other tenants. The court abandoned the distinction between landlord malfeasance (wrongful acts) and nonfeasance (failure to act) in situations where the landlord creates a condition and retains the right to control it. This precedent establishes that a landlord has an affirmative duty to abate a nuisance created by one tenant that affects another if the nuisance was a foreseeable consequence of the lease and is within the landlord's control, strengthening tenants' rights in constructive eviction cases.
