Teller v. McCoy
162 W. Va. 367, 1978 W. Va. LEXIS 355, 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 that the landlord must, at the commencement of the tenancy, deliver the dwelling unit and surrounding premises in a fit and habitable condition and thereafter maintain them in such condition; a tenant's covenant to pay rent is mutually dependent on this warranty, allowing for contract-based remedies for breach, and waivers of this warranty are against public policy.
Facts:
- No specific underlying facts of the dispute between the parties were provided in the court's opinion, as the case was heard on five certified questions of law from the Circuit Court of Logan County, West Virginia.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs filed motions for "partial summary judgment and judgment on the pleadings" in the Circuit Court of Logan County, West Virginia.
- The Circuit Court of Logan County, West Virginia, denied the plaintiffs' motions.
- Upon joint motion of the plaintiffs and defendant, the Circuit Court of Logan County, West Virginia, certified five questions of law to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia for clarification.
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 residential landlord owe an implied warranty of habitability to a tenant, are the covenants to pay rent and maintain the premises mutually dependent, what remedies are available for a breach of this warranty, and can this warranty be waived?
Opinions:
Majority - McGraw, Justice
Yes, a residential landlord owes an implied warranty of habitability, and the covenants are mutually dependent. The Court holds that in a written or oral lease of residential premises, there is an implied warranty that the landlord shall, at the commencement of a tenancy, deliver the dwelling unit and surrounding premises in a fit and habitable condition and shall thereafter maintain the leased property in such condition. This ruling reflects a shift from the common law doctrine of caveat emptor (buyer beware) and independent covenants, recognizing that modern residential leases are more akin to contracts for services than traditional land conveyances. The Court notes the evolution of society from an agrarian economy to one where urban tenants seek a habitable living space, not just land. It cites numerous legislative enactments in West Virginia (State Fire Commission, State Board of Health, municipal codes, housing authorities) that demonstrate a public policy for safe and sanitary housing, thereby abrogating the common law no-repair rule. These statutes collectively indicate legislative intent to impose duties on landlords, making the old common law obsolete. Therefore, the implied warranty of habitability is consistent with current legislative policy. The Court further holds that since a lease of a residential dwelling unit is to be treated as any other contract, the covenant to pay rent and the warranty of habitability are mutually dependent. This means a landlord's material breach of the warranty can affect the tenant's obligation to pay rent. For remedies, the Court makes available common law contract remedies: damages, reformation, and rescission. A tenant may rescind the lease, vacate the premises, and be relieved of further rental obligations if the breach is substantial. A breach of the implied warranty can also be raised as a defense to a landlord's action for rent or unlawful detainer. The Court rejects the 'repair and deduct' remedy at this time, finding other contractual remedies adequate. Damages are measured by the difference between the fair market value of the premises if they had been as warranted and their fair rental value in the defective condition, plus additional damages for annoyance and inconvenience. The Court also states that protective orders requiring tenants to pay rent into court are not favored but permitted in limited circumstances, upon the landlord's motion and a showing of 'obvious need.' Finally, waivers of the implied warranty of habitability are held to be against public policy due to the potential for landlords to circumvent laws and exploit the scarcity of habitable dwellings.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Neely, Justice
Justice Neely concurs with the majority's decision to imply a covenant of habitability and treat the covenants as mutually dependent for cases arising before the effective date of W.Va. Code, 37-6-30 [1978]. However, he largely dissents from the majority's expansive pronouncements, asserting that most of the opinion's content is dicta because it goes beyond the specific certified questions related to prior common law and the new statute's effective date. Justice Neely argues that the Court cannot create wealth or provide "Ritz Hotel type housing" where it doesn't exist, warning that imposing excessive burdens on landlords will lead to higher rents or a reduction in available housing, particularly for lower-income tenants. He specifically criticizes the majority's stance on protective orders and waivers. Regarding protective orders, he argues that W.Va. Code, 37-6-30(c) effectively precludes the need for a landlord's motion for rent payment into court when a tenant is in arrears, implying automatic payment should be a condition precedent to asserting a habitability defense. He believes the majority's approach inadvertently increases costs for all tenants. As for waivers, he contends that a per se rule against them is too broad. He suggests that where intelligent parties genuinely bargain for less-than-elegant premises, and the rent reasonably reflects that bargain without unfair exploitation of a tenant's distress, a waiver should be enforceable. He advocates for a more nuanced approach, considering factors like rent price, tenant's employment, age, social skills, and lease length to determine if a waiver was intelligently bargained for.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Miller, Justice
Justice Miller concurs with the majority that the Court may properly establish an implied covenant of habitability and determine available remedies. However, he dissents on two key remedy-related points: the rejection of the 'repair and deduct' remedy and the established measure of damages. First, Justice Miller argues that the majority's rejection of the 'repair and deduct' remedy is inexplicable, as it is widely sanctioned by other courts adopting the implied warranty of habitability and has historical roots in common law for breaches of express covenants to repair. He cites Cheuvront v. Bee (1897) from West Virginia jurisprudence, which allowed tenants to make repairs after due notice and deduct the cost from rent. He emphasizes that this remedy is simple, expeditious, and fair, as the landlord receives prior notice and the tenant is unlikely to be extravagant with their own money. Second, he believes the majority's damage rule, which measures damages by the difference between the hypothetical fair market value of the premises if warranted and their defective value, is "manifestly unfair." He asserts this approach allows the tenant to recover a "profit" rather than redress actual losses, which violates the fundamental principle of compensatory damages. Instead, Justice Miller advocates for a more realistic damage rule: the actual rent paid by the tenant less the fair rental value of the premises in their defective condition. This, he argues, is the majority rule in other jurisdictions and ensures damages are tied to the tenant's actual out-of-pocket loss, acknowledging that not all apartments are new or perfect and that some tenants may choose to rent less-than-perfect units at a lower, realistic price.
Analysis:
This case represents a significant departure from traditional common law landlord-tenant principles in West Virginia, moving from a property-based caveat emptor model to a contract-based understanding for residential leases. By establishing an implied warranty of habitability and mutually dependent covenants, the Court greatly enhanced tenant rights and protections. This decision aligns West Virginia with a national trend toward consumer protection in housing, potentially increasing litigation related to housing conditions and requiring landlords to be more proactive in property maintenance. The debates among the justices on remedies like 'repair and deduct' and the specific measure of damages highlight ongoing challenges in balancing tenant protection with landlord responsibilities and economic realities, signaling areas for future statutory refinement or judicial interpretation.
