What is the name of your state? North Carolina.
I had a situation come up that I can't find any case law on. It involves the meaning of N.C.G.S. 42-41 which states:
"The tenant's obligation to pay rent under the rental agreement or assignment and to comply with G.S. 42‑43 [maintain the premises] and the landlord's obligation to comply with G.S. 42‑42(a) [maintain the premises] shall be mutually dependent."
The attorney for a friend's landlord maintains that in a case where the landlord has failed to make needed repairs and the tenant has caused some damage also, the case hinges on who was the first to breach the duty to keep the house fit. He said that if the tenant caused the first breach, say by breaking a window, that the landlord's obligation to make repairs ceases, and not only until the damage caused by the tenant is repaired. He says anything that occured during the time the window was broken and before the tenant cured the breach is not the responsibility of the landlord, now or at any time in the future.
In this case, my friend decorated her living room with long drapes that reached the floor, and covered two 40 year old baseboard heaters that were still functional, although the house had a modern heat pump. She asked the landlord if he could remove the heaters because they were a fire hazard in combination with the long drapes. He agreed, and removed one of the heaters. A few weeks later, when he still hadn't gotten around to removing the other heater, she removed it herself by removing one wood screw holding the heater to the baseboard, disconnecting the two wires and putting the wire nuts back on them, then putting in two new sections of baseboard. When the landlord finally showed up to remove the second heater and found what she had done he was happy with the repair to the baseboard, put the heaters in a storage room, and that seemed to be the end of it.
Two months later the heat pump failed and the repair bill was estimated at over $2,000. The landlord now maintains that her removal of the second baseboard heater was criminal under NCGS 42-43 which states that the tenant shall: "not deliberately or negligently destroy, deface, damage, or remove any part of the premises." His attorney says that because she breached the terms of the lease first that the mutual dependance ended and the landlord is not required to repair the heat pump, now or ever, even if she replaces the one heater she removed. Moreover, the landlord is also not responsible for the overflowing septic tank or the broken plumbing because they ocurred after she removed the heater, and he does not have to fix them now or ever.
I can't imagine that this is the meaning of the statute as it would seem to undo all the protection of 42-42 and 42-43. If this is the meaning, then the reverse should hold true as well - if the landlord breaches his duty first, then any damage the tenant does before the breach is mended is not his responsibility. As a landlord myself, this sounds insane.
The attorney says he has won many cases based on 42-41, but wouldn't cite me any references and I can't find any to show me case law on this. Does anyone know of any? Thanks in advance for any help.
I had a situation come up that I can't find any case law on. It involves the meaning of N.C.G.S. 42-41 which states:
"The tenant's obligation to pay rent under the rental agreement or assignment and to comply with G.S. 42‑43 [maintain the premises] and the landlord's obligation to comply with G.S. 42‑42(a) [maintain the premises] shall be mutually dependent."
The attorney for a friend's landlord maintains that in a case where the landlord has failed to make needed repairs and the tenant has caused some damage also, the case hinges on who was the first to breach the duty to keep the house fit. He said that if the tenant caused the first breach, say by breaking a window, that the landlord's obligation to make repairs ceases, and not only until the damage caused by the tenant is repaired. He says anything that occured during the time the window was broken and before the tenant cured the breach is not the responsibility of the landlord, now or at any time in the future.
In this case, my friend decorated her living room with long drapes that reached the floor, and covered two 40 year old baseboard heaters that were still functional, although the house had a modern heat pump. She asked the landlord if he could remove the heaters because they were a fire hazard in combination with the long drapes. He agreed, and removed one of the heaters. A few weeks later, when he still hadn't gotten around to removing the other heater, she removed it herself by removing one wood screw holding the heater to the baseboard, disconnecting the two wires and putting the wire nuts back on them, then putting in two new sections of baseboard. When the landlord finally showed up to remove the second heater and found what she had done he was happy with the repair to the baseboard, put the heaters in a storage room, and that seemed to be the end of it.
Two months later the heat pump failed and the repair bill was estimated at over $2,000. The landlord now maintains that her removal of the second baseboard heater was criminal under NCGS 42-43 which states that the tenant shall: "not deliberately or negligently destroy, deface, damage, or remove any part of the premises." His attorney says that because she breached the terms of the lease first that the mutual dependance ended and the landlord is not required to repair the heat pump, now or ever, even if she replaces the one heater she removed. Moreover, the landlord is also not responsible for the overflowing septic tank or the broken plumbing because they ocurred after she removed the heater, and he does not have to fix them now or ever.
I can't imagine that this is the meaning of the statute as it would seem to undo all the protection of 42-42 and 42-43. If this is the meaning, then the reverse should hold true as well - if the landlord breaches his duty first, then any damage the tenant does before the breach is mended is not his responsibility. As a landlord myself, this sounds insane.
The attorney says he has won many cases based on 42-41, but wouldn't cite me any references and I can't find any to show me case law on this. Does anyone know of any? Thanks in advance for any help.