Javins v. First National Realty Corporation
428 F.2d 1071 (1970)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In residential leases for urban dwelling units, a warranty of habitability, measured by the standards of the local housing code, is implied by operation of law. A landlord's breach of this warranty is a defense to an eviction for nonpayment of rent and may suspend the tenant's rental obligation.
Facts:
- Ethel Javins, Rudolph Saunders, and Stanley Gross each rented separate apartments in the Clifton Terrace apartment complex from First National Realty Corporation under written leases.
- After the tenants moved in, numerous conditions developed throughout the apartment complex that violated the District of Columbia Housing Regulations.
- The tenants alleged there were approximately 1,500 housing code violations in the three-building complex, some affecting their specific apartments.
- In response to these conditions, the tenants withheld their rent payment for the month of April.
Procedural Posture:
- First National Realty Corporation filed separate eviction actions against Ethel Javins, Rudolph Saunders, and Stanley Gross in the Landlord and Tenant Branch of the D.C. Court of General Sessions (a trial court), alleging nonpayment of rent.
- The tenants offered to prove approximately 1,500 housing code violations as an equitable defense.
- The Court of General Sessions refused to admit the tenants' proof and entered judgment for possession in favor of the landlord.
- The tenants, as appellants, appealed the decision to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals (an intermediate appellate court).
- The District of Columbia Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's ruling, holding that the landlord was not under a contractual duty to maintain the premises in compliance with housing regulations.
- The tenants, as appellants, were granted leave to appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do housing code violations that arise during the term of a lease suspend a tenant's obligation to pay rent?
Opinions:
Majority - J. Skelly Wright
Yes, a tenant's obligation to pay rent is dependent upon the landlord's performance of an implied warranty of habitability. The court held that the common law rule viewing a lease as a conveyance of land is outdated for modern, urban residential leases, which should instead be treated like contracts for a package of goods and services. Under contract principles, a warranty of quality and fitness is implied, and for residential leases, this warranty is one of habitability, measured by the standards set forth in the local housing code. The court reasoned that tenants, like modern consumers, have unequal bargaining power and must rely on the landlord's skill to maintain a complex dwelling. Furthermore, the D.C. Housing Regulations impose duties on landlords that cannot be waived and must be read into the lease agreement. A landlord's breach of these duties gives the tenant access to standard contract remedies, including withholding rent.
Concurring - Robb
Judge Robb concurred in the result and in the parts of the opinion holding that the District of Columbia's housing code implies a warranty of habitability and that a breach of this warranty can be used as a defense, affecting the tenant's rent obligation. This concurrence suggests agreement with the outcome based on the statutory housing code, but not necessarily with the broader common law reasoning that fundamentally re-characterizes leases as contracts.
Analysis:
This landmark decision fundamentally shifted landlord-tenant law by abandoning the old common law doctrine of caveat emptor (let the buyer beware) in residential leases. By establishing the implied warranty of habitability, the court treated tenants as consumers of housing services rather than mere possessors of land. This ruling empowers tenants by allowing them to use housing code violations as both a defense to eviction for nonpayment of rent and leverage to compel landlords to make necessary repairs. The case set a precedent that has been widely adopted across the United States, transforming the legal relationship between landlords and tenants in the modern era.
