Opinion ID: 2258987
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Verdict on the Implied Warranty Count

Text: The jury returned a verdict in favor of the landlords on the second count of the complaint, alleging a violation of the implied warranty of habitability in the tenants' leases. The tenants now urge us to reverse the judgment on the second count and to enter a judgment in their favor because they presented uncontroverted evidence that, in breaching the Voluntary Agreement, the landlords also violated the District of Columbia housing regulations. The implied warranty of habitability entered our jurisprudence in Javins v. First National Realty Corp., supra , which extended to tenants contractual remedies for a landlord's breach of the lease. Javins held that by signing the lease the landlord [assumes] a continuing obligation to the tenant to maintain the premises in accordance with all applicable law. 138 U.S.App. D.C. at 379, 428 F.2d at 1081. In fulfilling this duty, a landlord must remain in substantial compliance with the housing regulations, which, as they pertain to the warranty of habitability, require that a rented residence be maintained so as to provide decent living conditions for its occupants. Id. This duty, the court concluded, allowed tenants to assert the breach of this particular warranty as a defense to a landlord's suit for possession based on non-payment of rent. Id. at 380, 428 F.2d at 1082. In George Washington University v. Weintraub, 458 A.2d 43 (D.C.1983), we extended the Javins holding, ruling that the implied warranty of habitability `may be used as a sword (to collect damages) as well as a shield (to contest the obligation to pay rent).' Id. at 46 (quoting the trial court's memorandum opinion). We held accordingly that a tenant could rely on the landlord's breach of the implied warranty of habitability as the basis of an affirmative action for damages. Id. at 47. In so ruling, however, we recalled the warning of Javins that reliance on this warranty could not provide a basis for relief if the tenant failed to show more than a de minimis violation of the housing regulations. Id. at 47 n. 5 (citing Javins, 138 U.S.App. D.C. at 380 n. 63, 428 F.2d at 1082 n. 63). Thus we limited our holding in Weintraub by stating that a landlord must exercise reasonable care to maintain rental premises in compliance with the housing code in order to fulfill the implied warranty of habitability. 458 A.2d at 49 (emphasis added). In the case at bar, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, as we must, [12] we conclude that the tenants' claim of error is without merit. At trial, both Mr. Cowan and maintenance personnel testified that whenever they were notified of any problems caused by the installation of climate control units, Ritten-house employees were promptly dispatched to investigate and make necessary repairs. Further, at no point during the conversion process, or thereafter, were the tenants hindered from using their apartments because of the failure of the new units to operate or any problems arising from their allegedly poor installation. From this and similar evidence, the jury could reasonably find that the landlords had exercised reasonable care to maintain the building in compliance with the housing regulations, and that any arguable violations of the regulations were de minimis and hence, under Weintraub and Javins, provided no basis for a finding of a breach of the warranty of habitability.