Opinion ID: 5116742
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Express Agreement to Maintain Premises

Text: [¶13] Boles argues that paragraphs ten and twelve, the latter of which enumerates the maintenance responsibilities of the Lytles as tenants, create a genuine dispute as to whether the Whites expressly agreed to maintain the premises in good repair. Even if a tenant is in exclusive control of the premises, the third exception under Nichols provides that the landlord may still be liable for injuries sustained on the premises if the landlord “expressly agree[d] to maintain the premises in good repair.” Nichols, 483 A.2d at 343. [¶14] Boles contends that paragraph ten triggers this third exception because it constitutes “a written assurance” by the Whites to repair the property. In Nichols, we vacated a summary judgment in favor of the defendant landlords because there was a genuine dispute of fact as to whether the landlords expressly promised to maintain the premises after one of the landlords testified that, prior to signing the lease, she orally informed the tenants that minor repairs would be the tenants’ responsibility while major repairs would be handled by the landlords themselves. Id. at 344. 10 [¶15] Conversely, in Saunders v. Picard, we affirmed a summary judgment in favor of the defendant landlord, holding that “evidence that [the landlord] fixed the furnace, the water system, and the chimney, without more, will not support an inference that [the landlord] had expressly agreed to maintain the premises in good repair.” 683 A.2d 501, 502 (Me. 1996) (emphasis added). Further, with particular reference to the case before us, the rule imposing landlord liability when the landlord contracts to keep the premises in repair “has no application where the landlord . . . merely reserves the privilege to enter and make repairs if he sees fit to do so.” Restatement (Second) of Prop.: Landlord & Tenant § 17.5 cmt. b(1) (Am. Law Inst. 1977); see also Givens v. Union Inv. Corp., 359 A.2d 40, 42 (R.I. 1976) (“The general rule . . . is that the inclusion in a lease of a provision reserving to the lessor the privilege to enter and to make repairs is commonly held not to obligate the lessor to make repairs.”) (quotation marks and alteration omitted). [¶16] Thus, although the plain language of paragraph ten of the lease reserves a right of access to the Whites, as landlords, in the event that repairs are needed, it does not expressly require them to undertake any repairs nor does it, unlike the landlord’s disputed oral commitment to make repairs in Nichols, provide any assurance that they will. 11 [¶17] Boles also argues, based on the maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius, that all repair obligations not enumerated in paragraph twelve of the lease fell to the Whites. This maxim reflects a “well-settled” rule of construction useful for the interpretation of ambiguous language in statutes and other documents “that [the] express mention of one concept implies the exclusion of others not listed.” Musk v. Nelson, 647 A.2d 1198, 1201-02 (Me. 1994) (applying the maxim to interpret a statute); see also Stone v. U.S. Envelope Co., 119 Me. 394, 396-97, 111 A. 536 (1920) (applying the maxim to interpret corporate bylaws that lacked express provisions on the disputed issue). [¶18] However, the maxim has no application to language that is unambiguous, see, e.g., Young v. Greater Portland Transit Dist., 535 A.2d 417, 418 n.2 (Me. 1987) (declining to apply the expressio unius maxim to an unambiguous statute), and paragraph twelve of the lease is not ambiguous in any respect material to the Whites’ obligations. Indeed, any application of the maxim to interpret paragraph twelve, assuming its applicability, would mean only that any repairs not listed in paragraph twelve are excluded from the tenants’ responsibilities—not that the Whites would be required to perform them. 12 [¶19] We conclude that neither paragraph ten nor paragraph twelve of the lease contains an express agreement that the Whites will maintain the premises in good repair.4