Davilla v. Jones
436 So. 2d 507 (1983)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A lessee's right to withhold rent for necessary repairs arises only after the lessor has refused or neglected to make the repairs upon demand, and the withheld amount must be applied to the cost of indispensable repairs actually made by the lessee, not merely to exert economic pressure or in anticipation of refusal.
Facts:
- In 1974, Antoinette Davilla (lessor) and Lowell F. Jones (lessee) signed a five-year lease for part of a building at 333-335 Bourbon Street, with an option to renew for five additional years.
- The lease agreement specifically stipulated that Davilla was responsible for repairs to the roof and exterior walls.
- On February 4, 1981, Jones wrote to Davilla complaining of persistent water leakage through the roof and exterior walls, stating previous requests for repairs were unanswered, formally demanding repairs, and warning that if repairs were not commenced within two weeks, he would arrange them and deduct the cost from future rent.
- In response to Jones's letter, Davilla sent a roofing contractor, Mr. Shaw, who completed roofing work by mid-April 1981 at a cost of $2500, during which time Jones withheld rent for March and April.
- Mr. Shaw informed Jones that he could not complete the exterior wall repairs, and Jones notified Davilla on April 22, 1981, advising her that he would continue to withhold rent until enough was accumulated to hire his own contractor for the walls.
- Jones obtained repair estimates for the leaking exterior walls, totaling $30,850 on May 21, 1981, and $36,736 on June 1, 1981, discussing these with Davilla, who was also negotiating with another tenant, Ellwest Theatre, regarding maintenance costs.
- On June 1, 1981, Davilla sent a letter to Jones explicitly requesting that he "do not authorize the work be started at this time," stating she wanted at least one more reasonable estimate before taking necessary action to complete the work within a reasonable time.
- On July 10, 1981, Jones was personally served a notice to vacate the premises for nonpayment of rent totaling $3600.
Procedural Posture:
- Antoinette Davilla, lessor, filed a rule to evict Lowell F. Jones, lessee, in state trial court on September 23, 1981, alleging nonpayment of rent.
- The trial judge granted Davilla's rule to evict.
- Lowell F. Jones (defendant) took a suspensive appeal to the intermediate appellate court.
- The court of appeal reversed the trial court's decision, finding that the dealings between the lessor and lessee regarding withholding rent for wall repairs prevented Davilla from evicting Jones.
- Antoinette Davilla (lessor) then filed an application for writs to the Supreme Court of Louisiana, which granted the application.
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 lessee have the right to withhold rent from a lessor as a defense against eviction when the lessor has not explicitly refused or neglected to make necessary repairs upon demand, and the lessee has not yet made the repairs themselves and applied the rent to their cost?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Dixon
No, a lessee does not have the right to withhold rent from a lessor as a defense against eviction when the lessor has not explicitly refused or neglected to make necessary repairs upon demand, and the lessee has not yet made the repairs themselves and applied the rent to their cost. The court held that the right of a lessee to apply rent to repairs, as provided by Louisiana Civil Code Article 2694, arises only after the lessor has refused or neglected to make the necessary repairs upon demand by the lessee. In this case, Davilla did not refuse to make the repairs. Instead, she responded to Jones's initial demand by sending a contractor to perform roof repairs, and thereafter was actively taking steps toward arranging the more extensive wall repairs by negotiating with Ellwest Theatre and seeking additional bids. Davilla's June 1 letter, which stated, "I do not authorize the work be started at this time" while also requesting "at least one more reasonable estimate, after which time I will take necessary action in getting the work completed," was interpreted as a request for a reasonable amount of time to secure estimates and proceed, not a refusal or neglect of her repair obligation. The court found that Jones had no justification for withholding rent prior to this letter, as his initial demand for roof repairs was being met. The court emphasized that C.C. 2694 permits withholding rent only to apply it to the cost of repairs actually made by the lessee, and a lessee cannot anticipate refusal or neglect, nor can rent be withheld merely to exert economic pressure on a lessor. Since Jones failed to prove Davilla refused or neglected to make the repairs and had not himself made the repairs and deducted their cost, his withholding of rent was deemed improper, thus justifying eviction. The court cited Brignac v. Boisdore and Mullen v. Kerlec.
Dissenting - Justice Lemmon
Yes, a lessee may have the right to withhold rent in these circumstances, based on the court of appeal's reasoning. Justice Lemmon dissented for the reasons assigned by the court of appeal. The intermediate appellate court had previously found that the dealings between the lessee and lessor regarding the withholding of rent for necessary wall repairs prevented the lessor from evicting the lessee, implying that the lessor's conduct or the circumstances of the negotiations justified the lessee's actions or otherwise created an equitable bar to eviction.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies and strictly interprets the conditions under which a lessee in Louisiana may exercise the 'repair and deduct' remedy under Civil Code Article 2694. It sets a high threshold for lessees, requiring not just a delay in repairs, but clear evidence of the lessor's refusal or neglect after a proper demand, and critically, that the lessee must actually perform the repairs and deduct their proven cost. The decision limits a lessee's ability to use rent withholding as a preemptive measure or a general tool for economic leverage, thereby reinforcing the lessor's right to manage their property and repairs while upholding their fundamental obligation to maintain the premises. This ruling provides greater protection to lessors against potentially unjustified rent withholding claims and establishes important precedent for future landlord-tenant disputes concerning repair obligations.
