Boston Housing Authority v. Hemingway
1973 Mass. LEXIS 394, 363 Mass. 184, 293 N.E.2d 831 (1973)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In any residential lease, there is a non-waivable, implied warranty of habitability, and the tenant's obligation to pay rent is dependent on the landlord's compliance with this warranty.
Facts:
- Ruth Hemingway and Ruth Briggs (tenants) rented apartments from the Boston Housing Authority (landlord).
- The apartments suffered from serious defects, including leaking ceilings, wet walls, improper heating, broken doors and windows, and rodent and vermin infestations.
- After an inspection, the Boston housing inspection department issued a report to the landlord certifying that serious housing code violations existed which could endanger the tenants' health and safety.
- The tenants made repeated demands to the landlord to make repairs, but the conditions were not remedied.
- On March 1, 1969, the tenants began withholding their rent payments due to the uninhabitable conditions.
- The tenants did not provide the landlord with the specific written notice of their intent to withhold rent that was required by the rent-withholding statute, G. L. c. 239, § 8A, as it existed at the time.
Procedural Posture:
- The Boston Housing Authority filed two summary process actions against the tenants in the Municipal Court of the Roxbury District, seeking possession and unpaid rent.
- The Municipal Court, a trial court, found in favor of the Boston Housing Authority.
- The tenants appealed the decision to the Superior Court for a trial de novo.
- The Superior Court judge also found for the Boston Housing Authority, ruling that the tenants were foreclosed from using the statutory rent-withholding defense because they had failed to provide the required written notice.
- The tenants appealed the Superior Court's judgment to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, the state's highest court, on a consolidated bill of exceptions.
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 Massachusetts common law imply a warranty of habitability in residential leases, making the tenant's obligation to pay rent dependent on the landlord's duty to maintain a habitable dwelling, even when the tenant has not complied with the procedural requirements of the statutory rent-withholding defense?
Opinions:
Majority - Tauro, C.J.
Yes. Massachusetts common law implies a warranty of habitability in all residential leases, meaning the tenant's obligation to pay rent is dependent upon the landlord's duty to provide and maintain a habitable dwelling. The court abandoned the old common law rule of caveat emptor and independent covenants, which viewed a lease as a conveyance of land rather than a contract for shelter. This traditional view is incompatible with modern urban living, where tenants bargain for a safe and sanitary dwelling, not just land. The court's decision was heavily influenced by the public policy established by the Massachusetts Legislature through the enactment of the State Sanitary Code and tenant-remedy statutes like G. L. c. 239, § 8A. These statutes reflect a legislative judgment that rent is paid for habitable premises. Therefore, even if a tenant fails to follow the statutory procedure for withholding rent, they may still raise the landlord's breach of the implied warranty of habitability as a defense or counterclaim to an action for rent. The tenant's damages for such a breach are the difference between the agreed-upon rent (value as warranted) and the fair market value of the premises in their defective condition.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Quirico, J.
Concurring in the result, but dissenting as to the reasoning. The justice agreed that the old common law rule of independent covenants should be abandoned and that the tenants' rent liability should be reduced due to the apartment's condition. However, the dissent argued that the majority created an unnecessarily broad and undefined 'implied warranty of habitability' that will lead to extensive litigation to determine its meaning. Instead, the court should have held that the existing State Sanitary Code and other housing regulations are automatically implied into every lease. This would create a clear, precise, and easily understandable standard for the landlord's obligation, grounding it in established legislative policy rather than a vague judicial concept of 'livability.' Many of the cases cited by the majority, like Javins, ultimately measure the warranty of habitability by the standards of existing housing codes, which is the more prudent and logical approach.
Analysis:
This landmark decision fundamentally altered Massachusetts landlord-tenant law by replacing the doctrine of caveat emptor with an implied warranty of habitability in residential leases. It re-conceptualized the lease as a contract for services and shelter rather than a mere conveyance of real property, making the tenant's duty to pay rent and the landlord's duty to maintain the premises mutually dependent. The ruling empowers tenants by providing a common law defense against claims for rent even when they fail to comply with the strict requirements of statutory remedies. This case established a durable, non-waivable duty on landlords to ensure their properties meet basic living standards and set a precedent for calculating damages based on the diminished value of the uninhabitable premises.
