Court Opinion

ID: 9896033
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-09 15:07:20.634567+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:13:21.715640
License: Public Domain

RENDERED: NOVEMBER 3, 2023; 10:00 A.M.
                       NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

                Commonwealth of Kentucky
                          Court of Appeals
                             NO. 2022-CA-1294-MR

GREGORY KAYS                                                          APPELLANT

                APPEAL FROM MERCER CIRCUIT COURT
v.           HONORABLE DARREN WAYNE PECKLER, JUDGE
                       ACTION NO. 20-CI-00108

STRATEGIC HOLDINGS, LLC                                                    APPELLEE

                                   OPINION
                                  AFFIRMING

                                  ** ** ** ** **

BEFORE: DIXON, GOODWINE, AND TAYLOR, JUDGES.

GOODWINE, JUDGE: Gregory Kays (“Kays”) appeals from the Mercer Circuit

Court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Strategic Holdings, LLC

(“Strategic Holdings”). Based on our review, finding no error, we affirm.

            The circuit court summarized the background of this case as follows:

                   This case arises from an incident involving Plaintiff
            Gregory Kays which occurred on September 20, 2019, at
            an apartment unit owned by Strategic Holdings, LLC. At
            the time of the incident, [Kays] was a guest at an apartment
            that was being leased by his former girlfriend. [Kays] was
             in the process of taking out the trash when he stepped on a
             soft spot inside the residence near the front door and his
             left foot went through the floor. The soft spot inside the
             apartment unit was noticeably discolored and [Kays] and
             the tenant had each been aware of the soft spot since 2017.

                    Strategic Holdings, LLC, moved for summary
             judgment and argued that it bore no potential liability to
             [Kays] because under Kentucky Law, a defendant landlord
             cannot be liable for an injury caused by a condition inside
             the apartment which was known to the tenant or
             discoverable through reasonable inspection. Home Realty
             Co. v. Ca[r]ius, 224 S.W. 751, 752 (Ky. App. 1920);
             Warren v. Winkle, 400 S.W.3d 755, 759 (Ky. Ct. App.
             2013); True v. Fath Bluegrass Manor Apartment, 358
             S.W.3d 23, 27 (Ky. Ct. App. 2011). [Kays] filed a
             Response in Opposition to Strategic Holdings, LLC’s
             Motion for summary Judgment which argued summary
             judgment was improper because (1) while Plaintiff was
             aware of the discolored soft spot on the floor before the
             incident, he was not aware of the exact issue that was
             causing the defect; and (2) that the location of the defect
             in the floor constituted an area of the apartment that was
             under the control of the landlord and not the tenant.

Record (“R.”) at 293.

             The circuit court heard the parties’ arguments on August 18, 2022.

On October 5, 2022, the circuit court entered an opinion granting summary

judgment in favor of Strategic Holdings and dismissing Kays’ claims against it

with prejudice. The circuit court found Strategic Holdings presented evidence that

Kays was aware of the defect before the incident. Kays “testified in his deposition

that Strategic Holdings, LLC’s property manager had inquired about [Kays] fixing

the issue that led to water intruding under the floor, which [Kays] believes caused

                                        -2-
the soft spot, prior to the incident.” R. at 294. The circuit court was unconvinced

by Kays’ rebuttal argument that Strategic Holdings “retain[ed] exclusive control

over the area where the defect was located because the defect was to the unit’s

foundation and/or its structural components” based “on a comment to the

Restatement (Second) of Torts § 361 (1965).” R. at 194-95. The circuit court

concluded the evidence clearly showed the incident “occurred inside the leased

premises, where the tenant had exclusive possession[,]” and “the defect existed in

the floor itself, rather than to the unit’s foundation and/or structural components[.]”

R. at 295. This appeal followed.

             On appeal, Kays argues the circuit court erroneously found that,

because the incident occurred inside the leased premises, the subfloor, floor joists,

and other structural components under the apartment were in the exclusive control

of the tenant. Our standard of review for a grant of summary judgment is “whether

the trial court correctly found that there were no genuine issues as to any material

fact and that the moving party was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Scifres

v. Kraft, 916 S.W.2d 779, 781 (Ky. App. 1996). Summary judgment is proper “if

the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, stipulations, and admissions

on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to

any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of

                                          -3-
law.” CR1 56.03. The record must be viewed in a light most favorable to the non-

moving party, and all doubts will be resolved in its favor. Steelvest, Inc. v.

Scansteel Service Center, Inc., 807 S.W.2d 476, 480 (Ky. 1991). “Because

summary judgment involves only legal questions and the existence of any disputed

material issues of fact, an appellate court need not defer to the trial court’s decision

and will review the issue de novo.” Lewis v. B & R Corp., 56 S.W.3d 432, 436

(Ky. App. 2001).

                Kays’ single-paragraph argument solely relies on one case that cites

Restatement (Second) of Torts § 361 (1965):

                        A possessor of land who leases a part
                        thereof and retains in his own control any
                        other part which is necessary to the safe use
                        of the leased part, is subject to liability to his
                        lessee and others lawfully upon the land
                        with the consent of the lessee or a sublessee
                        for physical harm caused by a dangerous
                        condition upon that part of the land retained
                        in the lessor’s control, if the lessor by the
                        exercise of reasonable care.

                        (a) could have discovered the condition and
                        the risk involved, and

                        (b) could have made the condition safe.

                Comment b states the rule “applies to the maintenance of
                walls, roofs, and foundations of an apartment house or
                office building.”

1
    Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure.

                                               -4-
Warren v. Winkle, 400 S.W.3d 755, 760 (Ky. App. 2013) (quoting Restatement

(Second) of Torts § 361 (1965)). Based on Comment b, Kays argues “[b]ecause

neither the tenant, nor [Kays] had access to, or control of, the sub-floor, floor joists

or other structural components of the floor, these would fall into this same

category. As such, Strategic Holdings is liable to [Kays] for his damages.”

Appellant’s Brief at 7.

             Aside from citing one case and making a conclusory argument that we

should extend the Restatement in this case; Kays articulates no specific or detailed

arguments in his brief. “[A] terse, conclusory assertion wholly unaccompanied by

meaningfully developed argument or citation to authority is insufficient to merit

appellate relief.” Schell v. Young, 640 S.W.3d 24, 32 (Ky. App. 2021).

             Additionally, Kays’ argument is unsupported by Kentucky case law.

Strategic Holdings is not liable for Kays’ injuries because the incident occurred

inside the tenant’s townhome:

                    When determining whether a residential landlord is
             liable for injuries sustained on leased property, there is a
             critical distinction between properties leased wholly by
             one tenant and properties leased by numerous tenants.
             When a tenant maintains complete control and possession
             over the premises and the landlord has no contractual or
             statutory obligation to repair, the landlord is only liable
             for “the failure to disclose known latent defects at the
             time the tenant leases the premises.” Carver v. Howard,
             280 S.W.2d 708, 711 (Ky. App. 1955). However, when a
             portion of the premises is retained by the landlord for the
             common use and benefit of numerous tenants, the

                                          -5-
             landlord must exercise ordinary care to keep common
             areas in a reasonably safe condition. Id.

Jaimes v. Thompson, 318 S.W.3d 118, 119-20 (Ky. App. 2010). Furthermore,

“under the common-law negligence standard,” landlords “are not liable to” tenants

“for damages in connection with [their] personal injuries” when the tenant knew

about the dangerous condition. Waugh v. Parker, 584 S.W.3d 748, 754 (Ky.

2019).

             Kays was injured inside the tenant’s leased townhome. Kays’ injury

was caused by a soft spot in the floor by the front door caused by water damage,

which Kays testified in his deposition that he was aware of before the incident.

Kays testified in his deposition that Strategic Holdings’ property manager asked

him to fix “the problem with the water coming in through the doors.” R. at 335.

Kays further testified he became aware of the soft spot “just as soon as [his ex-

girlfriend] moved in.” R. at 342. Kays was an “ex-builder,” and he knew water

was “draining . . . between the subfloor and the hardwood.” Id. The water was

“discoloring the floor,” causing “a little divot,” and it finally “got weak enough”

that his foot went through the floor. R. at 342-43. Therefore, based on our record

review and applicable case law, the circuit court correctly found Strategic Holdings

was not liable for Kays’ injuries.

             For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the Mercer

Circuit Court.

                                         -6-
          ALL CONCUR.

BRIEF FOR APPELLANT:     BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:

Jeffrey R. Morgan        Zachary L. Turpin
Hazard, Kentucky         Joshua J. Leckrone
                         Lexington, Kentucky

                        -7-