Javins v. First Natinonal
Realty Corp. case brief summary
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
-->
428 F.2d 1071
CASE SYNOPSIS: Appellant
challenged decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit, which evicted the tenants in appellee
landlord's eviction action for non-payment of rent.
FACTS: Appellants rented apartments from an apartment complex. Appellee landlord attempted to evict appellants. Lower court allowed evictions, finding proof of housing code violations was inadmissible when proffered as a defense to an eviction action for nonpayment of rent.
HOLDING:
The Court disagreed because leases should have been viewed as contracts, and modern contract law implied warranties of quality to meet expectations of buyers.
ANALYSIS:
In addition, comprehensive regulatory scheme of the housing code displaced common law rule. Common law rule placing the burden of repair on tenant was no longer valid because modern urban tenants' interest in property had nothing to do with the land itself, but was an interest in having suitable living quarters. If housing code violations existed, but part of back rent was owed and tenants agreed to pay, judgment of possession could not have been entered.
CONCLUSION: Reversed and remanded because common law rule placing the burden of repair on tenant was no longer valid where modern urban tenants' interest in property had nothing to do with the land itself, but was an interest in having suitable living quarters.
FACTS: Appellants rented apartments from an apartment complex. Appellee landlord attempted to evict appellants. Lower court allowed evictions, finding proof of housing code violations was inadmissible when proffered as a defense to an eviction action for nonpayment of rent.
HOLDING:
The Court disagreed because leases should have been viewed as contracts, and modern contract law implied warranties of quality to meet expectations of buyers.
ANALYSIS:
In addition, comprehensive regulatory scheme of the housing code displaced common law rule. Common law rule placing the burden of repair on tenant was no longer valid because modern urban tenants' interest in property had nothing to do with the land itself, but was an interest in having suitable living quarters. If housing code violations existed, but part of back rent was owed and tenants agreed to pay, judgment of possession could not have been entered.
CONCLUSION: Reversed and remanded because common law rule placing the burden of repair on tenant was no longer valid where modern urban tenants' interest in property had nothing to do with the land itself, but was an interest in having suitable living quarters.
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
-->
No comments:
Post a Comment