Jack Spring, Inc. v. Little
280 N.E. 2d 208, 1972 Ill. LEXIS 494, 50 Ill. 2d 351 (1972)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In leases for residential property in multiple-unit dwellings, there is an implied warranty of habitability, measured by substantial compliance with the local building code. A landlord's breach of this warranty is a germane defense to a forcible entry and detainer action (eviction) based on the tenant's non-payment of rent.
Facts:
- Emma Little entered into an oral lease with Jack Spring, Inc. for a third-floor apartment in Chicago.
- Zeleta Price entered into a written lease with Sutton & Peterson, Inc. for a second-floor apartment in Chicago.
- Both Little and Price alleged that their respective landlords promised to make certain repairs but failed to do so.
- Little's apartment suffered from numerous structural defects that were violations of the Chicago Municipal Code, and the city's building department had filed suit against her landlord to enforce the code.
- Price also complained to city agencies about numerous building code violations in her apartment, but no enforcement action was taken.
- Price's written lease included a clause stating that her taking possession of the apartment was conclusive evidence that it was in good order and repair.
- Both Little and Price withheld rent payments due to their landlords' failure to maintain the premises in a habitable condition.
Procedural Posture:
- Jack Spring, Inc. filed a forcible entry and detainer action against Emma Little in the circuit court of Cook County, seeking possession and rent.
- Sutton & Peterson, Inc. filed a forcible entry and detainer action against Zeleta Price in the circuit court of Cook County, seeking possession.
- In both actions, the tenants raised affirmative defenses alleging their landlords breached duties to repair the premises and violated the Chicago building code.
- The circuit court granted the landlords' motions to strike the tenants' affirmative defenses as not germane to the proceedings.
- The circuit court entered judgments for possession in favor of the landlords in both cases.
- The tenants, Little and Price, appealed the circuit court's judgments to the Supreme Court of Illinois, which consolidated the two cases.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
In a landlord's forcible entry and detainer action based on non-payment of rent, is the landlord's alleged breach of an express or implied warranty of habitability a germane matter that a tenant may raise as a defense?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Goldenhersh
Yes, a landlord's breach of warranty is a germane defense in a forcible entry and detainer action. The court establishes that all residential leases for multiple-unit dwellings include an implied warranty of habitability, which requires the landlord to maintain the premises in substantial compliance with applicable building codes. When a landlord brings an eviction action for non-payment of rent, the question of whether rent is actually due is the central issue. A landlord's breach of the warranty of habitability is directly relevant—or germane—to this question because it may serve to offset or entirely eliminate the tenant's rent obligation. The court rejected the old common law rule that a tenant's covenant to pay rent is independent of the landlord's covenant to repair, reasoning that modern urban tenants bargain for a package of goods and services, not just land. Citing the trend in consumer protection law and the influential case of Javins v. First National Realty Corp., the court held that a lease should be treated as a contract, and the landlord's obligations are not independent of the tenant's.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Kluczynski
No, a landlord's breach of a covenant to repair should not be a germane defense in a forcible entry and detainer action. The majority's decision destroys the summary nature of eviction proceedings, which are intended solely to determine the right to possession. The common law has long held that the covenant to pay rent is independent of any covenant to repair; a landlord's breach does not excuse the tenant's failure to pay rent while remaining in possession. This significant change in landlord-tenant law is a matter of public policy that should be undertaken by the legislature, not the judiciary. The new rule will inundate the courts with protracted litigation over trivial claims and unduly delay landlords' ability to reclaim their property.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Ryan
No, the affirmative defenses in this specific case were not properly pleaded and should have been stricken. While the common law rule should be updated, the 'implied warranty of habitability' is a legal fiction; the better approach is to recognize an 'implied covenant to repair' based on the local housing code. A breach of this covenant could be a defense, but the tenants failed to properly raise it. They did not allege any specific damages resulting from the breach, nor did they tender the reduced rental value of the unrepaired premises. Instead, they improperly engaged in self-help by withholding all rent indefinitely, which admits that rent is due but being withheld merely to compel repairs. This is not a germane defense to the question of whether rent is owed.
Analysis:
This landmark decision fundamentally altered Illinois landlord-tenant law by rejecting the common law doctrine of independent covenants in residential leases. By establishing the implied warranty of habitability, the court shifted the lease from a pure property conveyance (caveat emptor) to a modern contractual agreement, bringing it in line with consumer protection principles. This precedent provides tenants with a powerful defense against eviction for non-payment of rent, linking their rent obligation directly to the landlord's duty to provide a safe and habitable dwelling. The ruling empowered tenants to enforce housing codes and has had a lasting impact on lease negotiations and housing litigation.
