Imperial Colliery Co. v. Fout
373 S.E.2d 489, 179 W. Va. 776 (1988)
Rule of Law:
The defense of retaliatory eviction is only available to a tenant if the landlord's eviction proceeding is in retaliation for the tenant's exercise of a right that is incidental to the tenancy itself.
Facts:
- For six years, Danny H. Fout, a coal miner employed by Milburn Colliery Company, leased a trailer lot from Imperial Colliery Company, an allegedly related company.
- The lease was for a primary period of one month and was terminable by either party with one month's notice, for an annual rent of $1.00.
- Fout participated in a selective labor strike against his employer, Milburn Colliery Company.
- On February 14, 1986, Imperial Colliery Company sent Fout a certified letter stating his lease would be terminated as of March 31, 1986.
- At Fout's request due to personal problems, Imperial voluntarily agreed to a two-month extension of the lease.
- Fout remained on the property after the extended termination date had passed.
Procedural Posture:
- Imperial Colliery Company filed a suit for possession of the property against Danny H. Fout in the Magistrate Court of Kanawha County.
- Fout answered and removed the suit to the Circuit Court of Kanawha County.
- In circuit court, Fout asserted the defense of retaliatory eviction and filed a counterclaim for an injunction and damages.
- Imperial Colliery Company moved for summary judgment.
- The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of Imperial Colliery Company, dismissing Fout's defense because his strike activity was unrelated to his tenancy.
- Fout, the appellant, appealed the circuit court's judgment to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, with Imperial as the appellee.
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 defense of retaliatory eviction apply when the tenant's activity that allegedly prompted the eviction, such as participating in a labor strike, is unrelated to the rights and conditions of the tenancy?
Opinions:
Majority - Miller, Justice
No. The defense of retaliatory eviction is not available when the landlord's motive is unrelated to the tenancy. The court held that to be legally cognizable, the retaliatory eviction defense must be based on a landlord's reaction to a tenant's exercise of a right incidental to the tenancy, such as reporting housing code violations or asserting rights related to habitability. The court surveyed the history of the defense, starting with Edwards v. Habib, and concluded that its central purpose is to protect tenants from being punished for claiming benefits afforded by health and safety statutes or exercising other rights related to the property. Fout's participation in a labor strike against his employer, even if that employer is related to the landlord, does not arise from the tenancy relationship. Therefore, his First Amendment rights of speech and association, in this context, are not protected by the retaliatory eviction defense.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies and narrows the scope of the retaliatory eviction defense in West Virginia. By requiring that the tenant's protected activity be 'incidental to the tenancy,' the court prevents the defense from becoming a universal shield against any eviction where a tenant can allege an unrelated retaliatory motive. The ruling reinforces the traditional underpinnings of the doctrine, which is to protect the warranty of habitability and tenants' rights as tenants, rather than their broader civil rights. This distinction will guide future cases by forcing courts to analyze the nexus between the tenant's conduct and the landlord-tenant relationship before allowing the defense to proceed.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Imperial Colliery Co. v. Fout (1988)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"