Teller v. McCoy
253 S.E.2d 114 (1978)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a residential lease, there is an implied warranty of habitability, requiring the landlord to deliver and maintain the premises in a fit and habitable condition. A landlord's breach of this warranty is a defense to an action for rent or unlawful detainer, as the tenant's covenant to pay rent and the landlord's warranty are mutually dependent.
Facts:
- The specific substantive facts of the underlying dispute between tenants Judy Teller and Barbara Hager and their landlord Martin McCoy are not detailed in the court's opinion.
- This case was presented to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia on certified questions of law from a lower court before a trial on the merits occurred.
- The legal questions centered on the existence of an implied warranty of habitability in residential leases and the remedies available to tenants for its breach.
Procedural Posture:
- Judy Teller and Barbara Hager sued their landlord, Martin McCoy, in the Circuit Court of Logan County, West Virginia (a trial court).
- The plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment and for judgment on the pleadings.
- The trial court denied the plaintiffs' motions.
- Upon a joint motion of the parties, the trial court certified five questions of law to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia for a ruling.
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 in a residential lease have an implied warranty of habitability, the breach of which relieves the tenant of the obligation to pay rent?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice McGraw
Yes, a residential lease contains an implied warranty of habitability, and the covenant to pay rent is dependent upon the landlord's performance of this warranty. The court abandoned the old common law rule of caveat emptor, which treated a lease as a mere conveyance of land, recognizing that modern tenants bargain for a package of goods and services that constitute a habitable dwelling. This shift is supported by legislative intent found in numerous state and local housing, fire, and health codes aimed at ensuring safe and sanitary housing. As the lease is now viewed as a contract, a landlord's material breach of the warranty entitles the tenant to basic contract remedies, including damages, rescission (vacating the premises and terminating the rent obligation), and raising the breach as a defense to an action for unlawful detainer or for rent.
Concurring in part and dissenting in part - Justice Neely
Yes, it is proper to imply a covenant of habitability where the covenants are not independent of the duty to pay rent, but the majority's opinion is largely dicta that goes too far. The majority's expansive new rules risk taking affordable, albeit dilapidated, housing off the market, which harms low-income tenants. A tenant claiming a breach of the warranty should be automatically required to pay rent into a court escrow account to prevent frivolous claims and protect landlords. Furthermore, waivers of the warranty should not be per se against public policy; intelligent parties who bargain for lower rent in exchange for less-than-perfect premises should be able to do so.
Concurring in part and dissenting in part - Justice Miller
Yes, the court may properly fashion an implied covenant of habitability, but the majority erred in defining the available remedies. The court should have recognized the 'repair and deduct' remedy, which allows a tenant, after giving the landlord notice, to make necessary repairs and subtract the cost from the rent. Additionally, the majority's measure of damages is incorrect; it should be the difference between the agreed-upon rent and the fair rental value of the premises in their defective condition, not the difference from the hypothetical value if the premises were as warranted. The majority's rule could result in a windfall for the tenant, awarding damages beyond their actual out-of-pocket loss.
Analysis:
This landmark decision fundamentally shifted West Virginia's landlord-tenant law from ancient property-based principles of 'caveat emptor' to a modern, contract-based framework. By establishing the implied warranty of habitability and making the tenant's duty to pay rent dependent on it, the court armed tenants with powerful new defenses and remedies. This ruling rebalanced the power dynamic in residential leases, holding landlords accountable for the condition of their properties and influencing how future landlord-tenant disputes, particularly eviction proceedings, are litigated.
Unlock the full brief for Teller v. McCoy