 |
Wiki Law School will soon be moving! Please update your bookmarks. Our future address is www.wikilawschool.org |
Reste Realty v. Cooper: Difference between revisions
From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
|date=March 17, 1969 | |date=March 17, 1969 | ||
|subject=Property | |subject=Property | ||
|other_subjects=Renting | |||
|facts=*In 1958, Mrs. Cooper rented the basement floor of an office building for business meetings & training sessions | |facts=*In 1958, Mrs. Cooper rented the basement floor of an office building for business meetings & training sessions | ||
*Because of construction defects in the driveway, Cooper's rented space became flooded whenever it rained | *Because of construction defects in the driveway, Cooper's rented space became flooded whenever it rained | ||
Revision as of 19:55, April 27, 2024
| Reste Realty v. Cooper | |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
|---|---|
| Citation | 251 A.2d 268 |
| Date decided | March 17, 1969 |
Facts
- In 1958, Mrs. Cooper rented the basement floor of an office building for business meetings & training sessions
- Because of construction defects in the driveway, Cooper's rented space became flooded whenever it rained
- After re-surfacing by the proprietor, the rain leaks became worse
- After the former building manager died in 1961, the new building manager ignored Cooper's leak complaints
- Cooper's meetings & trainings were disrupted because of the water leaks
- After a rainstorm that flooded the building basement at 5 inches in December 1961, Cooper submitted a notice & vacated the premises
- Reste Realty Corp. = "Reste" = the new management company of Cooper's building in New Jersey in 1962
- Cooper's lease was assigned to Reste in 1962
Procedural History
- In 1964, Reste sued Cooper for un-paid rent for the balance of Cooper's lease term
- Cooper won in the trial court
- The trial court found that Cooper was the subject of a constructive eviction
- Cooper lost in the Appellate Division
Issues
May a tenant vacate leased premises & avoid future rent payments if a landlord seriously interferes with the premises' intended use & enjoyment?
Holding
Yes. A landlord's serious interference with the premises' intended use & enjoyment of premises constitutes constructive eviction, justifying the tenant's departure & relieving further rent obligations.
Judgment
Reversed
Reasons
Justice Francis: If a lease contains a covenant of quiet enjoyment, a landlord's substantial breach of that covenant may constitute constructive eviction.
