Gottdiener v. Mailhot
431 A.2d 851, 179 N.J. Super. 286 (1981)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A landlord's failure to abate a nuisance created by one tenant that substantially interferes with another tenant's quiet enjoyment of their premises constitutes a breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment and can amount to a constructive eviction.
Facts:
- Paul and Janet Mailhot were tenants in an apartment complex owned by Alexander and Ernest Gottdiener.
- In the fall of 1978, new tenants moved into the apartment below the Mailhots.
- The Mailhots repeatedly complained to Gottdiener about 'intolerable noise' from the downstairs tenants, including slamming doors, yelling, and excessive volume from stereos late at night.
- Gottdiener's efforts to mediate were unsuccessful, and the Mailhots alleged the neighbors began a campaign of harassment, including vandalizing their car.
- A meeting suggested by Gottdiener resulted in the downstairs tenants threatening the Mailhots.
- After determining the situation was unresolvable, the Mailhots signed a contract to purchase a home.
- In a letter dated June 29, 1979, the Mailhots informed the Gottdieners they would vacate the apartment by August 31, 1979, due to the landlord's failure to correct the situation.
- The Mailhots moved out in late August 1979.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs (Gottdieners) filed suit against Defendants (Mailhots) in a New Jersey trial court seeking unpaid rent and other charges.
- Defendants asserted the affirmative defense of constructive eviction and counterclaimed for the return of their security deposit.
- Following a bench trial, the trial court judge found for the Defendants, ruling a constructive eviction had occurred, and dismissed the Plaintiffs' complaint.
- The trial court entered a judgment for the Defendants on their counterclaim.
- Plaintiffs (appellants) appealed the trial court's judgment to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.
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's failure to take action against a tenant creating excessive noise and harassment constitute a constructive eviction, thereby justifying another tenant's termination of their lease?
Opinions:
Majority - Kole, J.A.D.
Yes. A landlord's failure to abate excessive noise and harassment by one tenant can constitute a constructive eviction of another. A landlord breaches the covenant of quiet enjoyment through an act or omission that renders the premises substantially unsuitable for the purpose for which they are leased. Citing Millbridge Apartments v. Linden, the court affirmed that continual loud noise infringes upon a residential tenant's expectations of quiet and can make a premises unsuitable for ordinary residential living. The landlord had the power to remedy the situation, as New Jersey statutes (N.J.S.A. 2A:18-61.1(b)) explicitly provide for the eviction of tenants who are so disorderly as to destroy the peace and quiet of other occupants. The tenants did not waive their right to this remedy, as they vacated within a reasonable time after it became apparent the landlord would not take further effective measures.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the modern interpretation of a landlord's duties under the covenant of quiet enjoyment, extending it beyond the landlord's own actions to include their failure to control the conduct of other tenants. It rejects the older common law view that landlords are not responsible for nuisances created by third parties. The ruling places an affirmative duty on landlords to take reasonable steps, including eviction if necessary, to abate disturbances that substantially interfere with a tenant's use of their property. This strengthens tenants' rights and provides them with a clear remedy (constructive eviction) when a landlord is unresponsive to serious complaints about neighboring tenants.
