Property and Conveyancing William Schwartz
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Annual Survey of Massachusetts Law Volume 1969 Article 8 1-1-1969 Chapter 5: Property and Conveyancing William Schwartz Follow this and additional works at: http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/asml Part of the Property Law and Real Estate Commons Recommended Citation Schwartz, William (1969) "Chapter 5: Property and Conveyancing," Annual Survey of Massachusetts aL w: Vol. 1969, Article 8. Schwartz: Chapter 5: Property and Conveyancing CHAPTER' Property and Conveyancing WILLIAM SCHWARTZ A. LANDLORD AND TENANT: VIOLATIONS OF BUILDING CoDES: FR.OM IMMUNITY TO REsPONSmlL1TY §5.1. Introduction: The legal background. At common law, the position of the lessee, members of his family, and his visitors was very desolating as far as any tort liability of the landlord for harm from defects in the leased premises was concemed.1 Dolan v. Suffolk Franklin Savings Bank,2 decided in the 1969 SURVEY year, is a welcome addition to the cascading crescendo of cases and commentary across the nation which advocate an amelioration of this status. In the 19th century, landowners' economic interests were given paramount consideration. The courts of that period stamped approval of the general rule of the lessor's tort immunity by adopting the root concept that a lease was a sale of the premises for a term. Such a "jurisprudence of conceptions" meant that the landlord was subject to no liability for leasing premises in a dangerously defective con· dition because the heartless rule of caveat emptor applied, leaving the lessee blithely free to determine for himself the condition of the premises before making his uncoerced choice of whether or not to sign the lease.- The only recourse of visitors, in tum, was against the lessee or occupier of the land.' Nor was there any duty imposed on the lessor to keep the premises in repair after the tenant and his family moved in, for, under the talismanic immunizing phrase, there had been transferred an estate in the premises, and no matter how much the lessor may have been brimming with altruistic plans to repair, he had no right to enter. II WJI.LJAM: ScHwAltTZ is Fletcher Profelsor of Law at Bolton University Law School and general director of the American Trial Lawyers Aasoc:iadon. §5.1. 1 See Harkrider, Tort Liability of a Landlord, 26 Mich. L. Rev. 260 (1928); Prosser, The Law of Torts §65, at 411·414 (5d ed. 1964). 21969 Mass. Adv. Sh. 625, 246 N.E.2d 798. _ See, e.g., Daulton v. Wllliams, 81 Cal. App. 2d 70, 185 P.2d 525 (1947); Fowler v. Bott, 6 Mass. 58, 62 (1809) (lease held a sale of premises for a term); Cowen v. Sunderland, 145 Mass. 565, 564 (1887). 'Buoy v. Fidelity·Philadelphia Trust Co., 558 Pa. 5, 12 A.2d 7 (1940). II See 1 Tiffany, Landlord and Tenant 7 (1912); 2 Restatement of Torts §555; 2 Harper and James, Torts §27.16 (1956); Eldredge, Landlord'. Tort Liability for Disrepair, 84 U. Pa. L Rev. 467 (1986), reprinted in L Eldredge, Modem Tort Prob. lems 115 (1941). Published by Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School, 1969 1 Annual Survey of Massachusetts Law, Vol. 1969 [1969], Art. 8 §5.1 PROPERTY AND CONVEYANCING 79 An English judge succinctly summed up the dismal plight of the tenant and his family and servants at common law, "fraud apart, there is no law against letting a tumbledown house."8 If a tenant, having seen that the premises were patently perilous and rife with risk, still wanted to rent, that was his affair. Fraud apart, about the only lim itation or inroad on the landlord's tort immunity was his liability for injuries caused by concealed defects of which he knew and failed to make disclosure. This exception was given a grudging and con strictive construction by courts under the flourishing myth that over borne tenantS' were omnicompetent people, dealing at arm's length on a plane of legal parity, who might be expected to give the prem ises an intensive examination before renting them.7 In the last 90 years or so there has been a discernible shift from the rule of lessor's immunity to an approach which makes the land lord primarily responsible for the safe condition of his premises, thus placing the duty of making repairs on the party better able to make repairs. Basic transformations in social and economic conditions led to an irresistible need for first breaching and then replacing most of the original common law immunity doctrine. Wider use of the short term lease occurred because of greater mobility and stir of population. Changes in construction styles and patterns, increasing urbanization and the inflow from farm to city necessitated larger financial outlays to make repairs; and resulting urbanization proportionally increased the ratio of the population living in multiple dwellings, where the same defective condition might endanger more than one apartment family unit. The cumulative force of these factors led to a shifting of responsibility to the lessor by circumvention of the sales concept and to increasing breaches in the general common law no duty rules. The inroads on the lessor's immunity include: (1) concealed dan gerous conditions known to the lessor; (2) conditions dangerous to those outside the premises; (8) premises leased for admission of the public; (4) the lessor's covenant to repair; (5) negligence in making repairs; (6) portions of premises retained in lessor's control; (7) stat utes - frequently extended to multiple dwellings - requiring lessors to keep premises in good repair.8 The Dolan decision, the case under review, is concerned with the seventh exception or inroad on the lessor's immunity. It deals with the effect of the landlord's violation of the building code. This brief survey of the legal background would be incomplete without note being taken of the recent Massachusetts decision of 8 ErIe, C.J., in Robbins v. Jones, 15 C.B.N.S. 221, 240, 14S Eng. Rep. 768, 776 (1863). 7 See, e.g., Bowe v. Hunking, IS5 Mass. S80 (1883) (where a tread on backstairs, which were enclosed and "not well lighted," had been partly sawed through and painted over, the Court rigorously applied caveat emptor since this defect was discoverable by the tenant). ' 8 See Prosser, The Law of Torts §6S, at 411-425 (Sd ed. 1964); 2 Harper and James, Torts §27.15 (1956). http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/asml/vol1969/iss1/8 2 Schwartz: Chapter 5: Property and Conveyancing 80 1969 ANNUAL SURVEY OF MASSACHUSETIS LAW §5.2 Horton v. Marston. D In that case, the Supreme Judicial Court held that an implied warranty of habitability exists in a lease of furnished premises for a term of nine months. There are at least four possible rationales for the short term, furnished premises exception.10 They are (1) it is a judicial attempt to narrOw the ambit of the caveat tenant rule; (2) the short-term tenant of furnished premises has ex pectations regarding the uses of the. premises that are deserving of legal protection; (3) the short-term tenant of furnished premises has less opportunity to make an inspection; (4) the short-term tenant of furnished premises is more apt to fall prey to unconscionable land lords. §5.2. Housing conditions and the efficacy of existing remedies. A realistic approach to a resolution of the issues existent in this corner of the law must be predicated upon an appraisal of current housing conditions and the adequacy of existing remedies to improve the situation. Two commentators have observed: Today, half a century after slum dwelling laws were widely enacted in response to public outrage, and a generation since the principle of public housing became operative, there remain vast numbers of urban housing units in which the most appalling living conditions continue to exist. Yet, it would be difficult to find a social wrong that has been more thoroughly and elaborately attacked in law. For example, New York, the first city of America in quantity and detestability of its slum dwellings ... has at least five major legal devices designed to eliminate sub-standard hous ing: The owners of such housing can be criminally prosecuted; the offending building can be ordered vacated; rent can in some circumstances be withheld or abated; controlled rents can be involuntarily reduced; and the building .can even be put into receivership, so that the city can make repairs and obtain a lien on rents to secure reimbursement. These are certainly strong some might say Draconian measures; yet, despite their presence, abominable slum housing conditions persist in very great quan tity.l In many of our urban centers, housing is deteriorating more quickly than it can be replaced.• The 1960 Census of Housing reported that 24 percent of all occupied units were deteriorating, dilapidated or lacking some or all pllimbingfacilities.8 D 852 Mass. 822,225 N.E.2d 8ll (1967). 10 See R . .Berger, Housing 588 (1969). §5.2. 1 Sax and Hiestand, Slumlordism as a Tort, 65 Mich. L. Rev. 869, 870-871 (1967). 2 See Message of the President of the United States Relative to the Problems and Future of the Central City and Its Suburbs, III Congo Rec. 8908 ~1965). 8 Keith. An Aalessment of National Housing Needs, 82 Law Be Contemp. Prob. 209-218 (1967). Published by Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School, 1969 3 Annual Survey of Massachusetts Law, Vol. 1969 [1969], Art. 8 §5.2 PROPERTY AND CONVEYANCING 81 It has become economically impossible for private investors to provide new rental housing for low income groups; and subsi dized public housing will take many, many years to fill the gap even if current rates of urban renewal and other construction are greatly increased.