Brown v. Southall Realty Co.
237 A.2d 834 (1968)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A lease agreement is void and unenforceable as an illegal contract if, at the time of its signing, the landlord is aware of substantial violations of the housing code on the premises that render it unsafe and unsanitary.
Facts:
- Prior to Mrs. Brown signing a lease agreement, the appellee-landlord was on notice that the premises contained several Housing Code violations.
- A District of Columbia Housing Division inspector testified that the violations, including an obstructed commode, a broken railing, and insufficient ceiling height in the basement, existed for months prior to the lease.
- The inspector stated that the basement violations prohibited its use as a dwelling place.
- The owner of the property had previously submitted a sworn statement to the Housing Division promising to keep the basement vacant until the violations were corrected.
- Despite this knowledge, the appellee-landlord entered into the lease agreement with Mrs. Brown.
- After the lease was signed, the appellee-landlord told Mrs. Brown that a room in the basement was habitable, contrary to the housing code prohibitions.
- Mrs. Brown subsequently failed to pay rent, resulting in an arrearage of $230.00.
Procedural Posture:
- The appellee-landlord filed an action for possession against the appellant-tenant, Mrs. Brown, in the trial court for nonpayment of rent.
- At trial, Mrs. Brown asserted as a defense that no rent was due because the lease was an illegal contract.
- The trial court rejected the defense and entered a judgment for possession in favor of the appellee-landlord.
- Mrs. Brown, the tenant, appealed the trial court's judgment.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a lease agreement for residential premises void as an illegal contract if the landlord knowingly leased the property with substantial, uncorrected housing code violations in existence at the time the agreement was signed?
Opinions:
Majority - Quinn, J.
Yes, a lease agreement for premises with substantial, known housing code violations is an illegal and void contract. The general rule is that a contract made in violation of a statutory prohibition designed for police or regulatory purposes is void and confers no rights upon the wrongdoer. The District of Columbia Housing Regulations, which require rental units to be safe and sanitary, were enacted for public health and safety. The landlord's knowledge of the unsafe and unsanitary conditions prior to signing the lease meant the agreement was entered into in violation of these regulations. To uphold the validity of such a lease would flout the clear purpose of the housing regulations. Therefore, the lease is void and cannot be used as a basis for a suit for possession or rent.
Analysis:
This decision marks a significant departure from the common law doctrine of caveat emptor ('let the buyer beware') in landlord-tenant relationships. It establishes that housing regulations have contractual implications, effectively incorporating a minimum standard of habitability into residential leases. By allowing a tenant to void a lease based on pre-existing code violations, the case provided a powerful defense against actions for nonpayment of rent and paved the way for the development of the implied warranty of habitability. This ruling shifted significant leverage to tenants, pressuring landlords to maintain properties in compliance with health and safety codes from the outset of a tenancy.
Unlock the full brief for Brown v. Southall Realty Co.