Title: Wohlford v. Quesenberry

State: virginia

Issuer: Virginia Supreme Court

Document:

PRESENT: Carrico, C.J., Compton, Lacy, Keenan, Koontz, and 
Kinser, JJ., and Whiting, Senior Justice 
 
LINDA H. WOHLFORD 
 
 
                                 OPINION BY 
v.  Record No. 990320 
SENIOR JUSTICE HENRY H. WHITING 
 
 
                               January 14, 2000 
GLADYS A. QUESENBERRY 
 
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF BEDFORD COUNTY 
James W. Updike, Jr., Judge 
 
 
We are required to determine whether the Uniform 
Statewide Building Code (the BOCA Code) has modified the common 
law rule that a tenant who has exclusive possession and control 
of a premises, absent an agreement to the contrary, is 
responsible for its maintenance and repair.  Since the court 
sustained a demurrer to a tenant's counterclaim asserting that 
the common law rule was so modified, we state the facts as 
alleged in the counterclaim. 
 
In July 1997, Gladys A. Quesenberry (the landlord) rented 
a residence in Bedford County to Linda H. Wohlford (the tenant) 
under a month-to-month lease.  Nothing was said in their oral 
lease about who would maintain the premises.   
 
In the fall of 1997, the roof leaked and the furnace 
malfunctioned, both conditions causing damage to the tenant's 
personal property.  Additionally, soot and fumes from the 
malfunctioning furnace caused personal injury to the tenant.   
Upon the tenant's failure to pay the rent, the landlord 
filed an unlawful detainer warrant against her in the general 
district court, and the tenant removed this action to the 
Circuit Court of Bedford County.  The tenant filed a 
counterclaim in which she asserted the above facts.   
The tenant contended that the landlord's duties of 
maintenance and repair of the defective conditions in the 
premises arose under the National Property Maintenance Code (the 
Maintenance Code, PM-__), a part of the codes and regulations 
adopted by the Board of Housing and Community Development (the 
Board) pursuant to Code § 36-98.1  Accordingly, the tenant 
contended that the landlord was guilty of negligence per se in 
her violations of the code provisions. 
The court sustained the landlord's demurrer and dismissed 
the counterclaim.  Thereafter, the tenant vacated the premises, 
and the landlord nonsuited her unlawful detainer claim.  The 
tenant appeals the dismissal of her counterclaim. 
The tenant claims that the landlord's duties of repair and 
maintenance were expressly created in the Maintenance Code.  The 
following Maintenance Code sections require (1) that "fuel 
burning appliances shall be properly installed and maintained in 
a safe working condition, and shall be capable of performing the 
                     
1 Code § 36-99 also authorizes the Board to prescribe appropriate 
regulations having due regard to generally accepted standards 
recommended by nationally recognized organizations.  The BOCA 
and the Maintenance Codes were some of the recommended standards 
adopted by the Board.   
 
2
intended function," PM-603.1, and (2) that "[t]he roof and 
flashing shall be sound, tight and not have defects that admit 
rain."  PM-304.7   
 
The parties agree that these duties exist under the 
Maintenance Code.  However, they disagree as to who has these 
duties in this case.  Because she leased the entire premises, 
the tenant recognizes that she would have had those duties at 
common law since the lease is silent on the subject.  See Kesler 
v. Allen, 233 Va. 130, 133, 353 S.E.2d 777, 779 (1987); Paytan 
v. Rowland, 208 Va. 24, 26, 155 S.E.2d 36, 37 (1967).  The 
tenant contends, however, that the BOCA and Maintenance Codes 
shifted these responsibilities to the landlord in this case. 
 
The landlord responds that Code § 36-97 and Section 202.0 
of the BOCA Code embrace the common law rule by their inclusion 
of a lessee in control of a building or structure in their 
definitions of an "owner" as one who has the described repair 
and maintenance responsibilities.2  The landlord also notes that 
                                                                  
 
2 The relevant provisions of Code § 36-97 are: 
 
As used in this chapter, unless the context or subject matter 
requires otherwise, the following words or terms shall have the 
meaning herein ascribed to them, respectively: 
 
. . . . 
 
"Owner" means the owner or owners of the freehold of the 
premises or lesser estate therein, a mortgagee or vendee in 
 
3
Section 201.1 of the BOCA Code provides that, unless otherwise 
expressly stated, its specific definition of listed words, one 
of which is an "owner," shall have the listed meanings in 
applying its provisions.  The landlord points out that Section 
201.3 of the BOCA Code provides "[w]here terms are not defined 
in this code and are defined in [three other listed codes, none 
of which is the Maintenance Code] such terms shall have the 
meanings ascribed to them as in those codes." 
 
Because the term "owner" is defined in Code § 36-97 and 
in the BOCA Code, we conclude that their definition applies to 
the tenant.  The tenant claims, however, that in requiring the 
tenant to permit the landlord access to the premises for the 
discharge of landlord maintenance and repair responsibilities, 
the Maintenance Code implies a landlord's right to enter the 
premises.  Accordingly, the tenant reasons that she never had 
the necessary control of the premises required either at common 
law or under the Codes' definition of "owner." 
 
The tenant's reasoning is flawed because its major 
premise is that the landlord has the maintenance and repair 
responsibilities specified in the Maintenance Code.  As we 
stated earlier, the BOCA and Maintenance codes impose 
                                                                  
possession, assignee of rents, receiver, executor, trustee, or 
lessee in control of a building or structure.  (Emphasis added.) 
 
 
4
responsibilities on the "owner" of the premises as defined in 
Code § 36-97 and the BOCA Code.  Because the tenant was the 
person in control of the premises, not the landlord, the tenant 
is the defined "owner" under the facts of this case, and the 
tenant has the maintenance and repair responsibilities claimed.  
Hence, we conclude that under the circumstances described in 
this case, none of the code sections relied upon created a 
liability upon the landlord for the damages and injuries alleged 
in the counterclaim. 
 
Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court will be  
Affirmed. 
 
5