DePAUL v. Kauffman
272 A.2d 500, 40 A.L.R. 3d 810, 441 Pa. 386 (1971)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state law that permits a tenant to withhold rent and place it in escrow when a government agency certifies a dwelling as "unfit for human habitation" is a valid exercise of the state's police power and does not unconstitutionally impair the obligation of contracts, violate due process, or constitute an improper delegation of legislative authority.
Facts:
- Peter, Eugene and Helen DePaul were the owners of a nine-unit apartment building in Philadelphia.
- On or about April 4, 1968, the City of Philadelphia certified the DePauls' property as 'unfit for human habitation.'
- Pursuant to the Rent Withholding Act, tenants began withholding rent and depositing the funds into an escrow account held by Samuel Kauffman.
- The Act stipulated that if the property remained unfit after six months, the escrowed funds would be returned to the tenants.
- The DePauls applied for a loan to make the necessary repairs to render the property 'fit for human habitation.'
- The DePauls alleged that their loan application could not be processed before the six-month statutory period expired on October 27, 1968.
Procedural Posture:
- Peter, Eugene and Helen DePaul filed a complaint in equity in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia against escrow agent Samuel Kauffman.
- The DePauls sought a declaratory judgment that the Rent Withholding Act was unconstitutional and an injunction to prevent the return of escrow funds to tenants.
- The trial court granted a preliminary injunction.
- Kauffman filed preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer.
- The Court of Common Pleas sustained the preliminary objections, dissolving the preliminary injunction.
- The DePauls, as appellants, appealed the trial court's order to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
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 the Pennsylvania Rent Withholding Act, which allows tenants to suspend rent payments for dwellings certified as 'unfit for human habitation,' violate the U.S. and Pennsylvania Constitutions by improperly delegating legislative authority, being unconstitutionally vague, taking property without due process, or impairing the obligation of contracts?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Roberts
No, the Pennsylvania Rent Withholding Act is a constitutional exercise of the Commonwealth’s police power. The Act does not improperly delegate legislative authority because the standard 'unfit for human habitation' is sufficiently specific, especially when read with the Philadelphia Housing Code, which provides ample notice of the required standards, thus satisfying any vagueness concerns. The Act does not violate due process because it is a reasonable regulation aimed at securing safe and decent housing, and the means employed—rent withholding—bear a real and substantial relation to that objective. Finally, it does not unconstitutionally impair contracts because the state’s police power to protect public welfare can legitimately affect pre-existing contracts, and for new contracts, the law is simply part of the agreement.
Dissenting - Mr. Chief Justice Bell
Yes, the Pennsylvania Rent Withholding Act is unconstitutional despite its worthy objectives. The Legislature failed to provide definite and adequate standards to guide the administrative agency, resulting in an improper delegation of legislative power that a city ordinance cannot cure. The goal of remedying deplorable housing conditions does not justify violating the Constitution, and this Act is not a lawful exercise of the police power.
Analysis:
This decision validates the use of rent escrow statutes as a legitimate tool for enforcing housing codes, significantly strengthening tenants' rights and leverage against landlords who fail to maintain habitable premises. By upholding the law against a multi-pronged constitutional attack, the court affirmed that the state's interest in public health and safety can justify significant intrusions into landlords' property and contract rights. This ruling serves as a key precedent for similar tenant-protection laws across the country, establishing that economic sanctions like rent withholding are a constitutionally permissible means of achieving the public policy goal of safe and decent housing.
