Posts Tagged Tenant Damage

Wisconsin Supreme Court Rules Against Landlord in Maryland Arms Case and Chooses To Avoid Answering The Bigger Question

The Wisconsin Supreme Court filed its opinion in this very important case on July 7, 2010.  While the majority opinion ruled against the landlord it did not go so far as to say that a landlord and tenant could not allocate liability for damage (when neither party was negligent in causing the damage) in their rental agreement. 

If you would like to review the specific facts of the case and the arguments made by both sides please revisit my posts of May 29, 2009 and October 15, 2009.

The Court was split, so there is a majority opinion, a concurring opinion, and a dissenting opinion.  So if you are brave enough you can read all three opinions which encompass 37 pages and can be read here.  The Wisconsin Law Journal provides a very good summary of the decision if  you are not feeling ambitious enough to read all 37 pages.

As an attorney who primarily represents landlords, I must admit that I had a mix of emotions after I finished reading the opinion.  I was upset that the majority opinion held that the landlord should be responsible for damage to his rental property that was caused by the tenant leaving her hair dryer plugged in overnight.  I was also frustrated by the fact that the major issue in the case — whether or not a landlord and tenant can allocate liability through the language of the rental agreement — was not addressed by the majority opinion, thus providing little guidance to landlords in the future.  On the other hand I was also grateful that the majority decided to “pass the buck” and not address this issue becasue, quite frankly, if the majority had addressed that issue, I believe they would have said “no” a landlord cannot allocate liability on a tenant for damage that was not casued by the negligence of the tenant.

The majority opinion held that the landlord should be held responsible for the damage because the rental agreement (which was drafted by the landlord) was ambiguous when it came to who would be held liable for damage in a situation where neither the tenant not the landlord were negligent in causing the damage.  The majority rested its decision on a very well established principle of contract law that any ambiguity in a contract  should be construed against the drafter of the contract.  The majority said that since the contract terms did not unambiguously state that the tenant would be liable for the damage under the specific fact situation in this case, then the landlord should be liable for the damage.

The majority declined to address the very important issue that the AASEW and other landlord associations were concerned about in this case — whether a landlord can add a lease provision assigning liability to a tenant for damages (when the damages is not caused by the tenant’s negligence) or whether doing so would be a violation of Wis. Stat. sec. 704.07.  So essentially the “Supremes” chose to dodge the issue, which in effect means that nothing prevetns a landlord from allocating liability to a tenant for such damage in a rental agreement under similar facts.  What this also means is that should a landlord make such an allocation and hold a tenant responsible for similar damage, the tenant can argue that such contract language violates sec. 704.07, and the courts will have no guidance as to how to rule. 

It was a missed opportunity by the Supremes to add to Wisconsin Landlord-Tenant law.  However, based, on the tortured analysis (my view) of the majority opinion, if the court had addressed the allocation of liability issue it would have most likely resulted in a holding that would not allow a landlord and tenant to allocate liability — which would have been even worse.  So in the end maybe it was best that the issue was not addressed.

Justice Ziegler, who agreed with the majority opinion, wrote a concurring opinion to add that  her view of Wisconsin law is that a landlord and tenant are not prohibited from allocating liability by contract as long as it is done clearly (i.e. no ambiguity) and is otherwise enforceable by law.

The dissenting opinion, which begins on page 18 and is authored by Justice Prosser, stated that not only are a landlord and tenant allowed to allocate liability in a rental agreement but that that is exactly what the parties to this lawsuit did and that the majority opinion is ignoring the clear meanign of the language in the rental agreement.  The dissent did not find the lease to be ambiguous at all.  The dissent, quite correctly in my opinion, points out the absurd nature of the majority opinion by saying that ”imposing responsibility on the landlord for damage caused by a tenant, when the landlord cannot control risks created by the tenant” (like keeping a hair dryer plugged in overnight) defies economic logic.

The dissent, being very pragmatic, actually takes the time to address what the practical effect the majority decision will have on landlords by stating, “When the landlord is made responsible for abnormal damages that is actually caused by tenants, the landlord must spread the resulting expense among all tenants by charging higher rent.  When a tenant is made liable for damage that is caused by that tenant, the landlord is better able to control rent and the tenant has an economic incentive for prudent stewardship of the premises.” 

Which of the three opinions seem more reasonable and logical to you?

Tags: , , ,

MARYLAND ARMS CASE WILL BE REVIEWED BY WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT

In my May 28, 2009 post I wrote about the then recently published Wisconsin Court of Appeals case of Maryland Arms Limited Partnership v. Connell, 2009 WI App 87, __ Wis.2d __, 769 N.W.2d 145

This was an important case because a divided Court of Appeals held that a tenant could not be held responsible for the damages that resulted after her hair dryer caused a fire which resulted in thousands of dollars of damage to her landlord’s rental property. 

A key fact in the case was that the landlord agreed that the tenant was not negligent in causing the fire becasue she had no prior knowledge of the hair dryer being faulty.  Another key fact in the case was that the tenant’s lease contained a provision that stated that the tenant would be responsible for all damages that were in any way caused by the acts of the tenant.  The Court of Appeals held that such a lease provision was void.

The landlord in this case has petitioned the Supreme Court of Wisconsin to review the the case and the “Supremes” have agreed to hear the case.  Oral arguments are to be held on January 6, 2010 and it is expected that a decision will be issued sometime in 2009-2010 term.

One of the main issues that the Wisconsin Supreme Court will have to decide is whether or not a landlord can contractually make a tenant liable for damage in a situation where the tenant is not negligent in causing the damage.

This will be an interesting case to watch and I will keep you updated as I learn more.

Tags: ,

COURT OF APPEALS SAYS TENANT NOT LIABLE FOR FIRE DAMAGE

The court of appeals recently released its decision in the case of Maryland Arms Limited Partnership v. Connell. This decision has been reccomended for publication.  The issue in this lawsuit was whether the landlord or the tenant should be liable for damage to an apartment unit when the damage was not caused by the negligence of either the landlord or tenant.  The Court of Appeals held that it is the Landlord that should be held liable in such a situation.  As such the case will now stand for the proposition that a tenant cannot be held liable for his/her actions that damage the property unless the damage is caused by the tenant’s negligence

The facts were as follows and were not disputed by either the tenant or the landlord:

-  A fire occurred in the tenant’s apartment and caused $8,000 worth of damages while the tenant was asleep.

-  The fire started from a hair dryer owned by the tenant which was plugged into the elctrical outlet.

-  The tenant did not know that the hair dryer was deffective when it was left plugged into the electrical outlet.

- The tenant and the landlord both agreed that the tenant was not negligent in causing the fire as she had no indication that anything was wrong with the hair dryer when she left it plugged into the outlet.

The rental agreement that was signed by both the tenant and landlord included the following language:

“Lessee shall be responsible for all intentional and negligent acts or breaches of thie Lease by the Lessee, Lessee’s occupants, guests, or invitiees.  Lessee shall be liable for all damage to the premises and appliances and equipment belonging thereto, in any way caused by the acts of Lesee, Lessee’s occupants, guests and invitiees.

As a result of the above language the trial court (Judge Michael Brennan of Milwaukee County) granted judgment for the landlord and against the tenant.

A majority of the Court of Appeals (the court was divided as one judge dissented) reversed the trial court’s ruling and remanded the case back to the trial court directling it to enter judgement against the landlord.

In essence the Court of Appeals voided the lease language that is underlined  above becasue it felt that the lease provision was contrary to the Wisconsin Statutes governing Landlord Tenant Law – specifically sec. 704.07, Wis. Stats.

Sec. 704.07 states that a landlord is required to make repairs to the property unless the repairs were made necessary by the negligence of the tenant.  Sec. 704.07 also states that a tenant must repair damage if it is the result of the tenant’s negligence.

The Court of Appeals did admit that sec. 704.07 does not specifically address the issue of who should be responsible in a situation where the damage was not caused by the negligence of either the landlord or the tenant.   The logical outcome should then be to look to the rental agreement and determine what the parties agreed to in such a situation.  If that was done then the tenant would be liable for the cost of the fire damage repair.

Instead the Court of Appeals held that the only logical conclusion that one should come to after reading the statute is that it is the landlord’s responsibility to pay for the damage because the damage was not caused by the tenant’s negligence.

This is just another example of the courts going out of their way to protect the tenant at all expenses.  It seems as if the Court decided the outcome that they wanted and then did whatever was possible to piece together an argument to support that outcome rather then following and applying the law as written and then arriving at the outcome.  I’m assuming the landlord had insurance and the Court felt that as such the landlord would be better able to handle the repair costs.

Landlords already have statutes and administrative code regulations that tell them what they can and cannot include in their rental agreements.  Now we have a case that essentially says that even if a statute or regulation doesn’t prevent you from including certain language  in your rental agreement, if we (the Court of Appeals) don’t like the provision that was included in then we will find a way to make it void and unenforceable.

The only voice of reason appears to be in the dissent which is authored by  Judge Ralph Adam Fine  — who by the way was once a member of my law firm Petrie & Stocking S.C. (we only hire the smartest and brightest  ;  )  — who concluded that while the landlord would have a duty to repair the fire damage there is nothing in the statute that requires the landlord to be responsible for the cost of the repairs in the end especially when the parties agrees differently in the rental agreement.

It is yet unknown if the landlord will appeal this decision to the Supreme Court of Wisconsin or even if it did whether or not the “supremes” whould agree to hear the case.  So it appears as if for now at least we have precedent in this case that is not very favorable to landlords.

What are your thoughts on this decision?

Tags: ,