Also known as: quiet enjoyment · tenant's right of quiet enjoyment · right to quiet enjoyment · covenant of quiet enjoyment
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
An implied covenant in a lease that protects a tenant's right to undisturbed possession and use of the leased premises without substantial interference from the landlord or those claiming under the landlord. The covenant is breached when the landlord substantially interferes with the tenant's permissible use, allowing the tenant to claim constructive eviction or other remedies.
Quintana Quest leased an apartment from Quintina Qualls. After closing a prior lienholder asserted a claim that substantially interfered with Quest's possession. Quest invoked the covenant of quiet enjoyment to hold Qualls liable for the defect.
Quintana Quest leased an apartment above a space that Quintina Qualls later rented as a bar. Late-night music and crowds from the bar substantially deprived Quest of quiet enjoyment for months. Quest successfully raised constructive eviction as a defense to the landlord's rent claim.
The landlords leased apartments to the defendants for residential use in a building they owned. They also leased nearby premises to third parties for operation as a bar or cocktail lounge. The lease for the lounge required that entertainment be conducted so that it could not be heard outside the building and would not disturb the apartment residents. The landlords introduced this commercial activity into an area leased for residential purposes. The lounge presented amplified music from electric musical instruments and singing starting at 9:30 P.M. and continuing until 1:30 A.M. or 2 A.M. on Tuesdays through Sundays. The music penetrated the granite walls of the residential building and was described as unbelievably loud, incessant, raucous, and penetrating. Noise from patrons yelling and fighting also occurred, interfering with conversation and preventing sleep for the tenants. The residential tenants made numerous objections to the landlords about the disturbances. The landlords promised each tenant to correct the situation and complained to the lounge tenants from time to time. Although the noise would abate in response to the landlords' complaints, their attempts to remedy the problem were unsuccessful. Each tenant vacated his apartment within a reasonable time. The landlords brought consolidated actions for rent against the tenants. The trial judge found that the tenants were very substantially deprived of quiet enjoyment of their leased premises for a substantial time. The trial judge further found that the landlords had it within their control to correct the conditions which amounted to a constructive eviction of each tenant. Following entry of judgment for the tenants, the landlords appealed and the Supreme Judicial Court transferred the appeals for its review.
View caseQuiana Quach rented an apartment in a building owned by Quest Pharmaceuticals. Persistent failures to repair heating and plumbing systems substantially interfered with Quach's use of the premises. Quach withheld rent and defended on breach of the implied covenant of quiet enjoyment.
Several tenants rented apartments in Clifton Terrace, a three-building apartment complex in Northwest Washington, by separate written leases with First National Realty Corporation. On April 8, 1968, the landlord filed separate actions in the Landlord and Tenant Branch of the Court of General Sessions seeking possession on the ground that each tenant had defaulted in the payment of rent due for the month of April. The tenants admitted that they had not paid the landlord any rent for April but alleged numerous violations of the Housing Regulations as an equitable defense or claim by way of recoupment or set-off. The tenants offered to prove that there are approximately 1500 violations of the Housing Regulations of the District of Columbia in the building at Clifton Terrace, where the defendant resides, some affecting the premises of the defendant directly, others indirectly, and all tending to establish a course of conduct of violation of the Housing Regulations to the damage of defendants. They conceded at trial that this offer of proof reached only violations which had arisen since the term of the lease had commenced. The Court of General Sessions refused the offer of proof and entered judgment for the landlord. The District of Columbia Court of Appeals affirmed, rejecting the argument that the landlord was under a contractual duty to maintain the premises in compliance with the Housing Regulations. Because of the importance of the question presented, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit granted the tenants' petitions for leave to appeal.
View caseQuinlan Quezada leased premises from Quincy Manufacturing. The landlord refused to deliver possession at the start of the term because a prior tenant remained. Quezada sued for breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment before taking possession.
On August 31, 1927, Dusch leased to Hannan certain real estate in the city of Norfolk, Virginia, for fifteen years, the term to begin January 1, 1928, at a specified rental. There is no express covenant as to the delivery of the premises nor for the quiet possession of the premises by the lessee. The declaration alleges that it thereupon became the duty of the defendant to see to it that the premises leased should be open for entry by the plaintiff on January 1, 1928. The petitioner was willing and ready to enter upon and take possession of the leased property and so informed the defendant. Yet the defendant failed and refused to put the plaintiff in possession or to keep the property open for him at that time or on any subsequent date. The defendant suffered to remain on said property a former tenant or tenants who occupied a portion or portions thereof and refused to take legal or other action to oust said tenants. Hannan alleged damages which he had suffered by reason of this alleged breach of the contract and deed and sought to recover such damages in the action. Dusch demurred to the declaration on several grounds. One ground was that under the lease set out in said declaration the right of possession was vested in said plaintiff. There was no duty as upon the defendant to see that the premises were open for entry by said plaintiff.
View caseQuoc Quan leased a home targeted by repeated residential picketing organized by a neighbor group that the landlord could control. The picketing substantially interfered with Quan's quiet enjoyment of the premises. Quan sought injunctive relief to protect the residential use.
Brookfield, Wisconsin, is a residential suburb of Milwaukee with a population of approximately 4,300. Appellees Sandra C. Schultz and Robert C. Braun, who opposed abortion, picketed on a public street outside the residence of a doctor who performed abortions at clinics in neighboring towns. Between April 20, 1985, and May 20, 1985, they and others assembled outside the doctor's home on at least six occasions for periods ranging from one to one and a half hours, with groups varying in size from 11 to more than 40 people, and the picketing remained generally orderly and peaceful. The picketing generated substantial controversy and numerous complaints, prompting the Town Board to enact an ordinance on May 7, 1985, that prohibited all picketing in residential neighborhoods except for labor picketing. After the town attorney advised that the labor exception likely rendered the ordinance unconstitutional under Carey v. Brown, the town repealed it on May 15, 1985, and replaced it with a flat ban stating that it is unlawful for any person to engage in picketing before or about the residence or dwelling of any individual in the Town of Brookfield. The new ordinance recited its purpose as the protection and preservation of the home through assurance that members of the community enjoy in their homes and dwellings a feeling of well-being, tranquility, and privacy, and noted concerns about emotional disturbance, distress, harassment, and obstruction of public sidewalks. On May 18, 1985, appellees were informed that enforcement would begin on May 21, leading them to cease picketing and file suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against the town and its officials. The District Court granted a preliminary injunction, which the Seventh Circuit affirmed by an equally divided en banc vote after initial panel proceedings. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the case after postponing consideration of its appellate jurisdiction.
View caseQuest Quail leased commercial space from Reste Realty Corp. Recurrent flooding from a latent defect substantially interfered with Quest Quail's business operations. Quest Quail successfully claimed breach of the implied covenant of quiet enjoyment and obtained rent abatement.
In May 1958, Joy M. Cooper leased a portion of the ground floor of a commercial building at 207 Union Street, Hackensack, New Jersey, from the predecessor in title to Reste Realty Corp. After about a year of occupancy, the parties executed a new five-year lease in April 1959 covering the entire ground floor except the furnace room for use as commercial offices in connection with a jewelry firm's sales training and meetings. A driveway ran along the north side of the building. During the first year of occupancy, rainwater ran off the driveway into the leased offices whenever it rained. Arthur A. Donigian, an officer and resident manager of the corporate owner who also maintained an office in the building, was notified of the flooding and took steps to remove the water. Before signing the second lease, Donigian promised to remedy the problem by resurfacing the driveway, and the work was performed. Donigian died on March 30, 1961. Thereafter, when flooding occurred, the lessor ignored Cooper's complaints, and she and her employees removed the water themselves. On multiple occasions, including after heavy rainstorms that left up to two inches of water, sales meetings with as many as fifty attendees had to be relocated or adjourned, sometimes requiring rental of other quarters. On December 20, 1961, five inches of water flooded the premises during a meeting of sales representatives from four states, forcing the meeting to be moved to a nearby inn. Cooper consulted an attorney that evening and, after notifying the lessor, vacated the premises on December 30, 1961. Reste Realty Corp. acquired the building and the lease assignment on January 19, 1962. On November 9, 1964, it sued Cooper to recover rent for the unexpired term through March 31, 1964. The trial court entered judgment for Cooper on her constructive eviction defense. The Appellate Division reversed, and the Supreme Court of New Jersey granted certification.
View caseSubstantial interference with the tenant's use and enjoyment of the premises constitutes a breach. This includes disturbances from other tenants or spaces under the landlord's control that the landlord can correct, as well as the landlord's own direct interference.
Supporting sources
Yes. A general warranty deed includes an express covenant of quiet enjoyment that runs with the land and allows a later grantee to sue the original grantor for title defects.
Supporting sources
Yes. When a paramount title is asserted that would deprive the tenant of the contemplated use, the tenant may terminate the lease before entry and recover damages.
Supporting sources