Mease v. Fox - 200 N.W.2d 791 (Iowa 1972)

Rule:

Recognition of an implied warranty of habitability makes available to the tenant the basic contract remedies of damages, reformation and rescission. The breach of warranty must be of such substantial nature as to render the premises unsafe or unsanitary, and thus unfit for habitation. This will usually be a fact question to be determined by the circumstances of each case.

Facts:

Plaintiff landlord brought the present action to recover three months' rent from defendant tenants, who had vacated the leased home. Defendants' answer denied their default on the rental contract. By later amendments, defendants affirmatively alleged that the house, when leased, was in a state of disrepair and violated the municipal housing code. According to the defendants, plaintiff violated his duty to repair promptly and correct all conditions which rendered the premises unsafe, unsanitary or otherwise untenantable. Defendants prayed that plaintiffs’ petition be dismissed. A counterclaim, containing the same and additional allegations, demanded judgment for $1500 rent paid during the tenancy. The trial court dismissed the defendants’ counterclaim, holding that it failed to state any cause of action upon which relief could be granted. The affirmative defense was also stricken on the court's initiative for the same reason. The trial court thereupon directed a plaintiff’s verdict for $225. Defendants appealed. 

Issue:

Did the trial court properly dismiss the defendants’ counterclaim? 

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The court reversed that judgment on appeal and remanded. The court found that plaintiff impliedly warranted at the outset of the lease that there were no latent defects in facilities and utilities that were vital to the use of the premises for residential purposes and that the essential features would have remained during the entire term in such condition to maintain the habitability of the dwelling. The court further held that the implied warranty also represented that there was no violation of applicable housing law, ordinance, or regulation during the lease's term that would have rendered the premises unsafe, unsanitary, or unfit for living therein. According to the court, if it was determined on remand that there was a material breach of the implied warranty and that there was no waiver or estoppel as to that warranty, the basic contract remedies of damages, reformation, and rescission would have been available to defendants.