Opinion ID: 2621761
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Lessor Contracted to Repair the Premises

Text: [¶ 8] In Hefferin v. Scott Realty Co., 71 Wyo. 114, 254 P.2d 194 (1953), we examined the common-law rules of landlord liability. In that case, a tenant sued her landlord for injuries resulting from the landlord's improper furnishing of ventilation in the leased premises. 254 P.2d at 194. The parties' lease did not contain any provisions which referenced an obligation on the landlord's part to make repairs. 254 P.2d at 195. We held that, in the absence of an agreement to the contrary, a landlord is not obligated to make repairs upon the leased premises during the lease period whether the defects existed at the time he leased the premises or occurred thereafter. 254 P.2d at 197. This is so even if the premises are in a dangerous condition. Id. This principle is based on the theory that a landlord should not be liable for defects in the leased premises where he has not made any warranty or contract as to the condition of those premises or as to the repair of defects and is guilty of no willful wrong or fraud. Id. Essentially, the duty to repair arises out of the existence of the contract to repair; therefore, the contract defines the extent of the duty. Montelongo v. Goodall, 788 S.W.2d 717, 719 (Tex.App.1990). In Hefferin, the tenant did not rely on a contract contained in the lease, but instead she alleged the landlord made a promise to properly install a new ventilation system. 254 P.2d at 197. In response to the tenant's claim, we held the landlord is under no obligation to make repairs unless such a stipulation is made a part of the original contract or any subsequent promise to make repairs is supported by consideration and not founded merely on the relation of the parties. Id. Sufficient consideration exists when a tenant, who is not bound to a term of tenancy, relies upon a landlord's promise to make repairs made to induce the continuation of the tenancy. Id. However, in Hefferin, the tenant agreed to a definite three-year lease term, and we concluded there was no new consideration present for a promise or contract. Thus, the promise made by the landlord was wholly gratuitous, and therefore the landlord could not be liable. Id. Moreover, we held that a landlord's agreement to make repairs must take the form of an express contract and should not be implied from the parties' conduct. Id.; see also Taylor, 996 P.2d at 18. [¶ 9] The resolution of this matter centers on whether there is a genuine issue of material fact as to the existence of an agreement to make repairs. The tenant argues there are three indications in the record which prove there was, in fact, a mutual agreement that the landlord would make repairs. First, the tenant speculated that Dale Stietz, her boyfriend at the time and a party to the lease, made an agreement with the landlord. However, she admitted that she did not have any personal knowledge of such an agreement, and Mr. Stietz did not recall one. A genuine issue of material fact would be present if either the tenant herself made an agreement with the landlord or she had personal knowledge of an agreement between the landlord and Mr. Stietz and did not have to resort to speculation to prove an agreement was made. Next, she points to the fact that the landlord responded in his deposition as follows: Q. . . . I guess I can just ask you. Whose responsibility was it to make repairs on the house? . . . . A. Okay. I  mine, I guess. Q. . . . Okay. So if she had a leak under the sink, or something like that, she'd call you and you'd come take care of it? A. Yes. Q. Okay. A. I did. I don't know that it was really my responsibility, but I did  The tenant contends this statement constitutes the landlord's admission that it was his responsibility to make repairs. On the contrary, these remarks hardly suffice as evidence of a required express agreement to make repairs or a promise supported by sufficient consideration. [3] Taylor, 996 P.2d at 18. There was no evidence to prove an express agreement was made or the repairs were made as consideration to induce the continuation of tenancy. Finally, the tenant attempts to argue a reasonable inference may be drawn that an agreement existed because the landlord made repairs to the deck after each alleged incident. However, we have clearly held that an agreement may not be inferred from the conduct of the parties. Id. [¶ 10] Importantly, the tenant's inference of a prior agreement is contradicted by direct evidence in both the landlord's and Mr. Stietz's affidavits. The landlord asserts he did not make an agreement with either the tenant or Mr. Stietz to make repairs to the deck or any other part of the house. Nor was it a condition of leasing the premises. Further, Mr. Stietz stated he did not recall a discussion with the landlord regarding fixing up or repairing the deck, and there was no agreement that the deck was to be repaired as a condition of leasing the premises. While Mr. Stietz's statement does not specifically preclude the existence of an agreement that the landlord would make general repairs to the premises, on summary judgment the landlord's direct testimony cannot be overcome by the tenant's inference to the contrary. Blackmore v. Davis Oil Company, 671 P.2d 334, 337 (Wyo.1983). The record presented for our review discloses the tenant's mere speculation versus the landlord's unequivocal denial of an agreement. To succeed on summary judgment, after the movant establishes a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the opposing party to show a genuine issue of material fact or present competent evidence of specific facts countering the facts presented by the movant. Bender v. Phillips, 8 P.3d 1074, 1077 (Wyo.2000). The tenant failed to contradict the affidavits of the landlord and Mr. Stietz and therefore did not satisfy her burden. [¶ 11] The facts of this case closely resemble the facts in Ortega, 902 P.2d 199. In that case, a residential home was leased by the landlord to tenants through an oral lease with a bare bones commitment by the tenants to pay rent in return for the landlord's surrender of possession. 902 P.2d at 201. The parties agreed there was no understanding regarding repairs. The tenants' social guest sustained personal injuries when she fell down the stairs at the home. Id. In the absence of a contractual provision to repair, we held the landlord had no duty to repair patent defects on the premises. 902 P.2d at 204. We affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment. Id. In the same vein, we cannot discern the existence of a genuine issue of material fact in this case sufficient to withstand summary judgment on the fourth exception to landlord immunity.