Stuckey v. Riverstone Residential SC, LP
21 So. 3d 970, 2008 La.App. 1 Cir. 1770, 2009 La. App. LEXIS 1465 (2009)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a residential lease agreement clearly and unambiguously shifts responsibility for the condition of the premises to the lessee, the lessor is not liable for injuries caused by defects unless the lessor knew or should have known of the defect, or received notice and failed to remedy it within a reasonable time, as provided by La. R.S. 9:3221.
Facts:
- On February 11, 2005, Ashley Stuckey executed an apartment lease for Apartment No. 2907 of the Jefferson Lakes Apartments, owned by The Lakes Limited Partnership and managed by Riverstone Residential SC, LP.
- Ashley Stuckey, her minor son Austin Stuckey, and her mother Crystal Stuckey resided in the apartment.
- Maintenance records showed that prior tenants had reported intermittent water leaks in various locations of Apartment No. 2907 from February 1998 through December 2004.
- In April 2005, Ashley Stuckey complained twice about a leak in an upstairs bathroom and delivered a handwritten letter to the property manager expressing concern about a "black substance" on air conditioning vents, a "possible mold problem," and associated sickness symptoms.
- On May 9, 2005, Riverstone arranged for its professional cleaning contractor to inspect the apartment for mold, which was not reported, and the following day, an industrial hygiene technician found no toxic levels of mold.
- On June 14, 2005, the Stuckeys arranged for their own testing of the apartment.
- On June 27, 2005, the Stuckeys vacated the apartment.
Procedural Posture:
- On February 13, 2006, Ashley Stuckey, Austin Stuckey, and Crystal Stuckey (plaintiffs) filed a petition for damages against The Lakes Limited Partnership and Riverstone Residential SC, LP (defendants) in a trial court, alleging negligence and fault due to exposure to toxigenic molds.
- The defendants answered the petition, denying liability and raising affirmative defenses, and further asserted a reconventional demand against Ashley Stuckey for unpaid rent, attorney fees, and costs.
- On October 8, 2007, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, contending that the terms of the lease absolved them of any liability for damages related to mold or mildew.
- The trial court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on March 17, 2008, finding the defendants were not liable by virtue of La. R.S. 9:3221, and signed a summary judgment on April 10, 2008, dismissing the plaintiffs’ claims with prejudice.
- Ashley Stuckey and Crystal Stuckey (plaintiffs-appellants) appealed the trial court’s summary judgment.
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 apartment owner have liability for injuries caused by mold when the residential lease agreement specifically shifts responsibility for mold to the tenant, and the owner promptly investigated and attempted to remedy issues upon notice, and there is no evidence the owner knew or should have known of the mold before tenant notification?
Opinions:
Majority - GAIDRY, J.
Yes, an apartment owner does not have liability for injuries caused by mold when the residential lease agreement shifts responsibility to the tenant for mold, and the owner promptly investigated and attempted to remedy issues upon notice, without prior actual or constructive knowledge of the specific defect. The court affirmed the trial court's summary judgment, finding that La. R.S. 9:3221 governs delictual (tort) obligations between lessors and lessees and can override La. C.C. art. 2699's warranty waiver provisions in this context. The lease agreement, specifically Paragraph 26(a) regarding "Mold & Mildew," clearly and unambiguously expressed the parties' intent that responsibility for mold or mildew in the apartment would rest upon Ashley Stuckey, for purposes of La. R.S. 9:3221. This statute provides an exception to a lessor's strict liability when the lessee assumes responsibility for the premises' condition, holding the owner liable only if they "knew or should have known of the defect or had received notice thereof and failed to remedy it within a reasonable time." Unlike La. C.C. art. 2699, La. R.S. 9:3221 does not require that such a provision be brought to the lessee's attention or explained if its language is clear and unambiguous. The court found no evidence that the defendants knew or should have known of the alleged mold before receiving Ashley Stuckey's letter on May 6, 2005. Upon receiving notice, the defendants promptly arranged for professional inspections and testing, which initially reported no mold or non-toxic levels. The plaintiffs' expert affidavit, while referencing prior leaks, attributed mold growth to "humidity" and did not establish that the defendants had prior knowledge of this specific mold condition. Furthermore, jurisprudence (citing Chau v. Takee Outee of Bourbon, Inc. and Jamison v. D’Amico) establishes that when a lease shifts responsibility under La. R.S. 9:3221, the owner-lessor is not under an expansive duty to inspect for defects and the "should have known" clause does not impose a burden to actively seek out defects. The court concluded that the plaintiffs failed to produce factual support to establish that the defendants knew or should have known of the mold or failed to remedy it within a reasonable time after notice.
Dissenting - GUIDRY, J.
Justice Guidry dissented, but no reasoning was provided in the case text.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the interplay between statutory provisions governing lessor liability and contractual waivers in Louisiana residential leases, particularly concerning hazardous conditions like mold. It reinforces that La. R.S. 9:3221 provides a significant defense for lessors, allowing them to shift responsibility for premises conditions to lessees through clear lease language, thereby limiting their liability to instances of actual or constructive knowledge and failure to act. The ruling significantly reduces the lessor's duty to proactively inspect for defects once responsibility has been assumed by the tenant, potentially making it harder for tenants to succeed in negligence claims for undiscovered defects unless they can prove the landlord had prior knowledge or failed to respond adequately to notice.
