Pierce v. Reichard
163 N.C. App. 294, 593 S.E.2d 787, 2004 N.C. App. LEXIS 382 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A landlord's knowing and prolonged failure to make necessary repairs to maintain a residential property in a fit and habitable condition, while continuing to collect rent, constitutes an unfair or deceptive trade practice under North Carolina law.
Facts:
- On April 5, 1999, Tammy Reichard signed a lease agreement with Ricky Pierce to rent a house.
- Approximately two weeks after moving in, the roof began to leak severely after a heavy rainfall, and Reichard immediately notified Pierce.
- For over two years, Reichard repeatedly complained about the leaks and resulting water damage each time she paid her rent.
- The constant leaking rendered one of the house's two bedrooms uninhabitable due to water damage, mold, and falling ceiling debris.
- In August 2001, Pierce replaced the roof shingles but did not repair any of the extensive water damage inside the house.
- Reichard also notified Pierce of a rotten tree in the yard that she believed was a danger.
- Pierce failed to address the tree, and a limb later broke off during a storm, damaging the windshield of Reichard's car.
Procedural Posture:
- Ricky Pierce filed a complaint for summary ejectment and money damages against Tammy Reichard in Magistrate's court.
- The Magistrate found in favor of Pierce.
- Reichard appealed the Magistrate's judgment to the North Carolina district court.
- In the district court, Reichard asserted a counterclaim against Pierce for breach of the implied warranty of habitability, seeking rent abatement and other damages.
- Following a bench trial, the district court entered judgment primarily for Reichard, awarding her treble damages for rent abatement, property damages, and attorney's fees.
- Pierce, as the appellant, appealed the district court's judgment to the North Carolina Court of Appeals.
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 knowing failure to make necessary repairs to keep a residential property in a fit and habitable condition, while continuing to collect rent for over two years, constitute an unfair or deceptive trade practice?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Hudson
Yes. A landlord's actions in collecting rent after having knowledge of the uninhabitable nature of part of the house constituted an unfair trade practice. The court reasoned that the rental of residential housing is considered 'commerce' under North Carolina's Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act (UDTPA), G.S. § 75-1.1. Citing precedent like Foy v. Spinks, the court held that when a landlord is aware that a rental property is unfit for human habitation, fails to make promised repairs, and continues to demand rent, such conduct is 'oppressive, unscrupulous, or substantially injurious to consumers' and thus violates the statute. Pierce's failure to repair the severe roof leaks for over two years while continuing to collect rent fell squarely within this definition. The court also affirmed damages for Reichard's broken windshield, holding that a landlord's statutory duty to keep premises 'fit and habitable' extends to the grounds and appurtenances, including the removal of a known, hazardous tree. However, the court vacated the award of attorney's fees, finding the trial court failed to make the necessary findings of fact regarding the reasonableness of the fee and the statutory requirements under G.S. § 75-16.1, such as a finding that Pierce's conduct was willful and that he made an unwarranted refusal to resolve the matter.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the application of North Carolina's Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act (UDTPA) to residential landlord-tenant disputes, providing a more potent remedy for tenants than simple breach of contract. By affirming that a landlord's prolonged failure to repair constitutes an unfair trade practice, the court reinforces that such conduct is not merely a failure to perform under the lease but a tortious act against a consumer. This precedent empowers tenants by making landlords potentially liable for treble damages and attorney's fees, creating a significant financial deterrent for landlords who might otherwise ignore their statutory duty to maintain habitable premises.
