Also known as: comfortable enjoyments · quiet enjoyment
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A protected interest in land use that permits an owner or possessor to occupy and utilize property without substantial interference from noise, odors, vibrations, or similar annoyances that impair ordinary residential or commercial activities.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Sterling LLP purchased a townhouse from Amy via general warranty deed and began renovations for law offices. Adjacent industrial activity produced ongoing vibrations and chemical odors. Sterling sued the neighboring operator for nuisance. The interference substantially impaired Sterling's comfortable enjoyment of the premises.
The Johnsons operated an organic farm next to Paynesville Farmers Union Cooperative Oil Co. Pesticide drift from the cooperative's operations contaminated their fields and prevented organic certification. The Johnsons sued for nuisance. The interference with their ability to market crops as organic impaired the comfortable enjoyment of their land.
Tenants leased apartments above a building that the landlords later rented as a cocktail lounge. Loud music and disturbances from the lounge continued late into the night. The tenants withheld rent and raised constructive eviction. The music substantially deprived them of quiet enjoyment of their leased premises for a substantial time.
Javins rented an apartment from First National Realty Corp. The unit suffered from multiple defects including faulty plumbing and heating that the landlord failed to repair. Javins withheld rent. The conditions substantially interfered with the tenants' use of the premises for ordinary residential living.
Nahrstedt owned a condominium unit in Lakeside Village and kept three cats in violation of the association's no-pet rule. The association sought to enforce the restriction. The cats caused no noise or odor affecting other owners. The rule did not impair any owner's comfortable enjoyment of neighboring units.
Cooper leased commercial space from Reste Realty Corp. Recurrent flooding from defective drainage repeatedly disrupted operations. Cooper vacated after the landlord failed to correct the condition. The flooding substantially interfered with Cooper's use of the premises for its intended business purpose.
The plaintiff must prove that the defendant's conduct substantially and unreasonably interferes with the ordinary use and enjoyment of the land. Courts assess the social value of the invaded use, such as quiet residential living, along with the extent, duration, and character of the harm.
Supporting sources
A tenant may terminate when the landlord or a party attributable to the landlord substantially interferes with a permissible use of the leased property and fails to cease after notice. Repeated unauthorized intrusions that disrupt operations support termination and damages.
Supporting sources
…therein. [^maj-37]: Ingalls v. Hobbs , 156 Mass. 348, 31 N.E. 286 (1892). [^maj-38]: The cases developing the doctrines of “quiet enjoyment” and “constructive eviction” are the most important. See 2 R. Powell, supra Note 10, ¶ 225 [3]. See also Gladden v. Walker & Dunlop , 83 U.S.App.D.C. 224, 168 F.2d 321 (1948) (landlord…