Mease Ex Rel. Oliver v. Fox
200 N.W.2d 791, 1972 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 890 (1972)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Iowa Supreme Court abandoned the common law doctrine of caveat emptor in residential leases, establishing an implied warranty of habitability that requires landlords to ensure leased dwellings are free from latent defects and material housing code violations that render the premises unsafe or unsanitary and unfit for living.
Facts:
- Plaintiff landlord leased a home to defendant tenants.
- The leased home was in a state of disrepair and violated the municipal housing code.
- Plaintiff landlord was notified of the housing code violations in 1968.
- In June 1970, one of the defendant tenants was struck by the falling bathroom ceiling.
- A city housing inspector then made up a notice of violations, and the premises were declared a public nuisance.
- Defendant tenants were ordered to vacate the premises, and they resided in the house until August 27, 1970, after having paid rent for May 1970.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff landlord sued defendant tenants in Des Moines municipal court to recover three months’ rent.
- Defendant tenants filed an answer denying default, denying plaintiff owned the claim, and raising an affirmative defense that the house was in disrepair, violated the housing code, and that the landlord breached his duty to provide a habitable premises.
- Defendant tenants also filed a counterclaim demanding judgment for $1500 in rent paid during the tenancy, based on the same allegations.
- The trial court dismissed the counterclaim because it failed to state any cause of action upon which relief could be granted.
- The trial court, on its own initiative, struck the affirmative defense, apparently for the same reason and for the additional reason that defendants were estopped from complaining about the disrepair without moving or taking corrective action.
- The trial court directed defendants to proceed on their original answer and cut off offers of proof relating to the action of the city health department as being on a matter not in issue.
- After testimony from one of the defendant tenants regarding rent payments and residency, the trial court directed a plaintiff's verdict for $225.
- Defendants appealed the trial court's decision.
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 an implied warranty of habitability exist in residential leases, allowing tenants to assert a landlord's breach of such a warranty as an affirmative defense or in a counterclaim for damages?
Opinions:
Majority - Reynoldson, Justice
Yes, an implied warranty of habitability exists in residential leases, allowing tenants to assert a landlord's breach of such a warranty as an affirmative defense or in a counterclaim for damages. The court departs from the antiquated common law doctrine of caveat emptor, which held that a tenant takes the premises as they find them, and recognizes an implied warranty that the dwelling is free from latent defects and material violations of housing code requirements at the outset of the lease and remains habitable throughout the term. The court notes that the common law evolved in an agrarian setting where land was paramount and buildings simple, making tenants responsible for repairs. However, in modern urban settings, tenants seek livable space, utilities, and services, not merely land, and often lack the skills, resources, or long-term interest to make repairs, while landlords are in a superior position to know of defects and housing code violations. This shift aligns with legislative policy for minimum housing standards (Chapter 413, The Code) and the trend in contract law, particularly implied warranties in sales of personalty (UCC Article 2) and new home sales. Recognizing this implied warranty provides tenants with basic contract remedies such as damages, reformation, and rescission for a substantial breach that renders premises unsafe or unsanitary. The breach must be of a substantial nature, which is a fact question determined by various circumstances.
Analysis:
This case represents a landmark shift from property law to contract law principles in landlord-tenant relationships, fundamentally altering the rights and responsibilities of both parties. By adopting the implied warranty of habitability, the court empowered tenants to demand safe and sanitary living conditions, providing them with critical legal recourse against landlords who fail to maintain their properties. This decision has significant implications for housing policy, promoting better housing standards and likely spurring legislative actions to codify or expand upon tenant protections. It set a precedent for consumer protection in an area previously dominated by the harsh caveat emptor doctrine, influencing other jurisdictions to follow suit.
