LOWE v ROOT
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 12817 I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O M N A A F F OTN 1974 EMMA LOIdE , P l a i n t i f f and A p p e l l a n t , -vs - FRED C. ROOT, e t a ] - . , Defendants and Respondents. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Fourth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable J a c k L. Green, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel o f Record: For Appellant : R i c h a r d J. C o n k l i n a r g u e d , White S u l p h u r S p r i n g s , Montana F o r Respondents : G a r l i n g t o n , Lohn and Robinson, M i s s o u l a , Montana Sherman V . Lohn a r g u e d and Gary L. Graham a r g u e d , Missoula , Montana Submitted: Decided: Filed: - r- b - 6 . d -''k!k .I, Y' November 2 2 , 1974 - rrR .c - @ 13TZ M. J u s t i c e Wesley C a s t l e s d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. r This i s an appeal by t h e l e s s e e , E m Lowe, from a summary m a judgment of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , Missoula County, g r a n t e d i n favor of l e s s o r s , Fred C . Root, C a r l E. D r a g s t e d t , Evelyn D r a g s t e d t , E l l a R. Clausen, Elmer S. Dragstedt and E l i n o r R. D r a g s t e d t . On A p r i l 9 , 1970, E m Lowe e n t e r e d i n t o two n e a r l y i d e n t i c a l m a l e a s e s w i t h t h e l e s s o r s , each i n v o l v i n g an undivided one h a l f i n t e r e s t i n t h e same r e a l p r o p e r t y d e s c r i b e d a s t h e Belmont Hotel i n t h e c i t y of Missoula. One l e a s e i d e n t i f i e d Fred Root a s t h e l e s s o r , t h e o t h e r i d e n t i f i e d t h e D r a g s t e d t s and E l l a Clausen a s l e s s o r s . Each l e a s e provided t h a t t h e term of t h e l e a s e should run up t o and i n c l u d i n g March 31, 1974. The l e s s o r e x p r e s s l y covenanted f o r t h e l e s s e e t h e q u i e t enjoyment of s a i d term. Lessee agreed to: "* * ? c a r e f o r and maintain t h e i n t e r i o r of s a i d premises and t h e e x t e r i o r c a s i n g s of a l l windows l o c a t e d on s a i d premises; t o permit no unlawful u s e of s a i d premises; t o make no major a l t e r a t i o n s without permission of t h e l e s s o r ; t o maintain and r e p a i r t h e h e a t i n g p l a n t and h o t w a t e r h e a t e r , and t o c a r r y adequate i n s u r a n c e t o p r o t e c t t h e lower f l o o r t e n a n t s from any water damage." *** The l e s s o r s , f o r t h e i r p a r t , were: "* * * t o keep and maintain t h e e x t e r i o r w a l l s of s a i d premises and t h e r o o f , and t o b e r e s p o n s i b l e yc." f o r t h e c a r e and r e p a i r of s a i d roof ** A l l p a r t i e s e x p r e s s l y understood and agreed t h a t they had examined t h e premises and knew t h e c o n d i t i o n t h e r e o f . While i n possession of t h e premises l e s s e e E m Lowe r e c e i v e d m a a l e t t e r f o r t h e f i r e marshal, d a t e d January 23, 1973, o u t l i n i n g a number of v i o l a t i o n s of t h e L i f e S a f e t y and E l e c t r i c a l Codes of t h e c i t y of Missoula and s t a t e of Montana. With t h e s o l e excep- t i o n of d e f i c i e n c e s w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e f i r e escape, a l l d e f i c i e n c i e s enumerated i n t h e l e t t e r involved t h e i n t e r i o r p o r t i o n of t h e building. The l e t t e r r e f e r r e d t o a l e t t e r d a t e d December 23, 1970 which l i s t e d many of t h e same d e f i c i e n c i e s . r e c e i v i n g t h i s 1970 l e t t e r . E m Lowe admitted ma The January 1973 l e t t e r ordered t h e v i o l a t i o n s t o be c o r r e c t e d by August 1, 1973. Lessor Root c o n t a c t e d t h e county a t t o r n e y and r e q u e s t e d him t o i n i t i a t e an a c t i o n t o condemn t h e premises from f u r t h e r u s e a s a h o t e l , boarding house o r rooming house. O May 1 4 , 1973, n an o r d e r of condemnation was f i l e d i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t d e c l a r i n g t h e premises t o be a f i r e hazard and a p u b l i c n u i s a n c e and o r d e r i n g a l l p a r t i e s t o t h i s i n s t a n t a c t i o n t o a l t e r and r e p a i r t h e b u i l d i n g on o r b e f o r e August 1, 1973. On August 3 , 1973, t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t g r a n t e d summary judgment, a f f i r m i n g t h e o r d e r of condemnation and d i r e c t i n g t h e s t a t e f i r e marshal t o proceed w i t h i t s e n f o r c e ment. O June 1 9 , 1973, Lowe f i l e d a complaint i n d i s t r i c t c o u r t n a g a i n s t Fred Root s e e k i n g l o s t p r o f i t s f o r t h e remainder of t h e l e a s e term and renewal term. were: rented. The p e r t i n e n t grounds of t h e complaint The premises were u n f i t f o r t h e purpose f o r which t h e y were Defendant Root had f a i l e d t o m a i n t a i n t h e premises i n a good and proper f a s h i o n so t h a t t h e y could b e o p e r a t e d f o r t h e purpose f o r which t h e l e a s e was i n t e n d e d . P l a i n t i f f Lowe had demanded t h a t defendant Root perform a c c o r d i n g t o t h e terms of t h e c o n t r a c t t o r e s t o r e t h e premises t o a good and proper c o n d i t i o n f o r t h e purpose f o r which t h e y were r e n t e d and t h a t defendant r e fused. E m Lowe had been caused t o become t h e defendant i n t h e m a condemnation a c t i o n because of t h e f a i l u r e of defendant t o r e p a i r . I n Count V I I I of h e r complaint Lowe a l l e g e d i n t h e f o l l o w i n g garbled fashion: "* * * That t h e y [ t h e d e f e n d a n t s ] f r a u d u l e n t l y conc e a l e d i n f o r m n t i o n concerning t h e d e f e c t s on t h e p r e m i s e s , from t h e p l a i n t i f f and f r a u d i i e n t l y w i t h h e l d t h e same i n f o r m a t i o n , which was known t o them concerning t h e d e f e c t i v e c o n d i t i o n of t h e premises and t h a t s a i d d e f e c t s were conc e a l e d unobservable by a common examination of t h e premises, and t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f , i n r e l i a n c e on t h e a s s u r a n c e of t h e d e f e n d a n t s t h a t t h e premises were, i n f a c t , i n f i t and proper o r d e r , b a s i s f o r t h e performing of t h e b u s i n e s s of a h o t e l r e n t a Ilt a s they had been l e a s e s f o r , e n t e r e d i n t o t h e a g r e e ment. Count IX of t h e complaint a l l e g e d : hat t h e defendant has w i l f u l l y , w r o n g f u l l y , u n l a w f u l l y , and i n t e n t i o n a l l y a t t e m p t e d t o d r i v e t h e p l a i n t i f f from t h e f u l l and q u i e t enjoyment of t h e premises, under t h e l e a s e . That t h e d e f e n d a n t , Fred C. Root, i s t h e C i t y A t t o r ney of t h e C i t y o f Missoula, and was p r i v i t y t o knowledge concerning t h e d e f e c t s above a l l e g e d i n t h e premises. *** That s a i d defendant, Fred C. Root, has a c t e d w i l l f u l l y , m a l i c i o u s l y , and wrongfully i n an a t t e m p t t o vex, h a r a s s , annoy and i n t i m i d a t e t h e p l a i n t i f f gc The defendant h a s , a s an agent [Dragstedts and Clausen] and f o r for the himself used t h e p o s i t i o n of h i s o f f i c e t o e x e r t , through t h e County A t t o r n e y ' s O f f i c e , caused t o b e f i l e d a complaint a l l e g i n g t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f i s g u i l t y of allowing t h e premises t o f a l l i n t o decay, and f u r t h e r t h e defendant h a s , a t h i s s p e c i f i c r e q u e s t and i n t e n t , caused t h e County through t h e County A t t o r n e y ' s o f f i c e , t o i s s u e an Order d e c l a r i n g t h e premises a f i r e hazard and a t t e m p t i n g t o a b a t e t h e same." * *. *** Three days l a t e r Lowe f i l e d a n e a r l y i d e n t i c a l complaint a g a i n s t t h e remaining defendants. The only s u b s t a n t i a l d i f f e r e n c e i n t h i s second complaint was she a l l e g e d t h a t Root a c t e d a s t h e a g e n t of t h e o t h e r defendants. Subsequent t o t h e condemnation, Lowe vacated t h e premises and no f u r t h e r r e n t a l s were paid. The two a c t i o n s h e r e t o f o r e mentioned, p l u s an unlawful d e t a i n e r a c t i o n f i l e d by defendants a g a i n s t p l a i n t i f f Lowe were c o n s o l i d a t e d . Defendants moved f o r summary judgment. I n i t s judgment and o r d e r g r a n t i n g defendants ' motion, t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t h e l d t h a t under t h e t e r n s of t h e l e a s e s defendants were n o t o b l i g a t e d t o make t h e s u b s t a n t i a l changes and a l t e r a t i o n s r e q u i r e d ; t h a t s e c t i o n 42-202, R.C.M. 1947, l i m i t s r e c o u r s e by a t e n a n t t o v a c a t i n g t h e premises o r performing r e p a i r s up t o t h e amount of one month's r e n t a l where, a s h e r e , t h e l e a s e d premises a r e f o r human h a b i t a t i o n ; t h a t p u n i t i v e damages cannot b e awarded without a showing of a c t u a l damages; and, t h a t p l a i n t i f f i n s p e c t e d t h e l e a s e d premises and knew i t s c o n d i t i o n . Plaintiff a p p e a l s from t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s g r a n t i n g d e f e n d a n t s ' motion f o r summary judgment. Three i s s u e s a r e presented f o r c o n s i d e r a t i o n on a p p e a l : Was t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t c o r r e c t g r a n t i n g summary judgment t o t h e defendants on t h e i s s u e of f r a u d ? Was t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t c o r r e c t i n i t s d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t s e c t i o n s 42-201 and 42-202, R.C.M. 1947, c o n s t i t u t e a b a r t o t h e claim of p l a i n t i f f ? (3) Was t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t c o r r e c t i n i t s d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t p l a i n t i f f ' s complaint d i d n o t p r e s e n t a f a c t u a l q u e s t i o n o f wrongful d i s r u p t i o n of p o s s e s s i o n ? W answer a l l q u e s t i o n s i n t h e a f f i r m a t i v e . e As t o t h e i s s u e of f r a u d , t h e p r e v i o u s l y quoted Count V I I I of t h e complaint a l l e g e d f r a u d u l e n t concealment of c e r t a i n informat i o n a s t o defects i n the property p r i o r t o the leases. Although a p p e l l a n t appears t o have abandoned any argument t h a t she was defrauded a s t o t h e p h y s i c a l c o n d i t i o n of t h e premises, we s h a l l d i s c u s s t h a t i s s u e i n o r d e r t o show t h a t summary judgment i n f a v o r of respondents was proper w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h a t l e v e l of f r a u d . I n support of h e r m i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n argument, a p p e l l a n t c i t e s Lee v. Stockmen's National Bank, 63 Mont. 262, 284, 207 P. -sets Lee 623. f o r t h t h e elements n e c e s s a r y t o prove a c t u a l f r a u d . i t goes f u r t h e r , however, and s t a t e s : I1 1 When i t appears t h a t a p a r t y , who c l a i m s t o have been deceived t o h i s p r e j u d i c e , h a s i n v e s t i g a t e d f o r h i m s e l f , o r t h a t t h e means were a t hand t o a s c e r t a i n 9 ; of any r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s made t o him, h i s the truth r e l i a n c e upon such r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s made t o him, however f a l s e they may have been, a f f o r d s no ground of complaint. (Grinrod v. Anglo-American Bond Co., 34 Mont. 169, 85 Pac. 891; Power & Bros. v. Turner, 37 Mont. 521, 97 Pac. 950 ; 26 C . J . 1149. ) I' (Emphasis s u p p l i e d ) . * * 1 I n o t h e r words, i f a p p e l l a n t ' s i n s p e c t i o n of t h e premises r e v e a l e d o r would have r e v e a l e d t h e t r u e p h y s i c a l c o n d i t i o n of t h e premises, she would have no r i g h t t o r e l y upon any concealment by respondents w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e p h y s i c a l c o n d i t i o n of t h e premises. Both l e a s e s provide t h a t t h e p a r t i e s "agree t h a t t h e y have examined t h e premises and know t h e c o n d i t i o n thereof1'. admits s h e i n s p e c t e d t h e premises. Appellant A review of t h e d e f i c i e n c i e s a s c i t e d i n t h e o r d e r of condemnation, r e v e a l s t h a t a l l of t h e a l l e g e d d e f e c t s were open and n o t o r i o u s . A superficial inspection'of the b u i l d i n g would r e v e a l t h o s e d e f i c i e n c i e s . Applying t h e f a c t s of t h i s c a s e t o Lee, and p a r t i c u l a r l y t o t h e language quoted h e r e t o f o r e , n e c e s s i t a t e s a f i n d i n g t h a t an a c t i o n a b l e c a s e of f r a u d a s t o t h e p h y s i c a l c o n d i t i o n o f t h e premises could n o t be found under t h e circumstances. The claimed m i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n was n o t argued by a p p e l l a n t Lowe i n t h e t r i a l c o u r t , except i n what may be d e s c r i b e d a s an o b l i q u e manner. The r a t h e r g a r b l e d a l l e g a t i o n i n Count V I I I of t h e complaint d i d n o t , by i t s e l f , a l l e g e f r a u d a s t o l e g a l consequences flowing from t h e p h y s i c a l c o n d i t i o n of t h e premises. Following t h e g r a n t i n g of summary judgment, a p p e l l a n t f i l e d what s h e c a l l e d a motion f o r r e h e a r i p g . For t h e f i r s t t i m e , n o t i n t h e motion, b u t i n t h e b r i e f f i l e d w i t h t h e motion, a p p e l l a n t Lowe r a t h e r o b l i q u e l y s t a t e s t h a t : "* * * t h e premises were n o t i n f a c t , f i t f o r t h e purpose of l e a s i n g t h e same a s a h o t e l and t h a t t h e knowledge t h a t t h e premises were n o t f i t f o r t h e purpose f o r which t h e y were l e a s e d was a s p e c i a l and p e c u l i a r knowledge a v a i l a b l e t o t h e d e f e n d a n t s through t h e i r a g e n t , and n o t r e a d i l y a v a i l a b l e t o t h e p l a i n t i f f by mere examination o f t h e premises. That i t r e q u i r e d an e x p e r t i s e , t h a t t h e defendant possessed and t h e p l a i n t i f f did not.* *.I1 * With t h i s b a r e r e f e r e n c e a t t h i s p o i n t i n t i m e , t h e t r i a l c o u r t w i l l n o t be put i n e r r o r . I t i s d i f f i c u l t t o lend credence t o t h e c l a i m of E m Lowe of f r a u d u l e n t m i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n i n l i g h t o f t h e m a i n f o r m a t i o n c o n t a i n e d i n t h e e x h i b i t a t t a c h e d t o t h e o r d e r of condemnation. The l e t t e r d a t e d January 1973 t o Lowe r e c i t e s t h a t i n a l e t t e r d a t e d December 23, 1970, many of t h e d i s c r e p a n c i e s were pointed out. This much l a t e r , beyond t h e p e r i o d of t h e s t a t u t e of l i m i t a t i o n s , more than an o b l i q u e r e f e r e n c e i n a b r i e f on a motion f o r r e h e a r i n g would be n e c e s s a r y t o r e s u r r e c t a f a c t i s s u e on motion f o r summary judgment . A p p e l l a n t ' s second i s s u e i s whether s e c t i o n s 42-201 and 42-202, R.C.M. 1947, c o n s t i t u t e a b a r t o t h e c l a i m of a p p e l l a n t . Those sections provide: The l e s s o r of a b u i l d i n g i n t e n d e d f o r t h e "42-201. occupation of human b e i n g s must, i n t h e absence of an agreement t o t h e c o n t r a r y , put i t i n t o a c o n d i t i o n f i t f o r such o c c u p a t i o n , and r e p a i r a l l subsequent d i l a p i d a t i o n s t h e r e o f which r e n d e r i t u n t e n a n t a b l e , e x c e p t such a s a r e mentioned i n s e c t i o n 42-105." "42-202. I f , w i t h i n a r e a s o n a b l e time a f t e r n o t i c e t o t h e l e s s o r of d i l a p i d a t i o n s which he ought t o r e p a i r , he n e g l e c t s t o do s o , t h e l e s s e e may r e p a i r t h e same h i m s e l f , where t h e c o s t s of such r e p a i r s do n o t r e q u i r e an expendit u r e g r e a t e r t h a n one month's r e n t of t h e p r e m i s e s , and deduct t h e expenses o f such r e p a i r s from t h e r e n t , o r t h e l e s s e e may v a c a t e t h e premises. i n which c a s e h e s h a l l be d i s c h a r g e h from f u r t h e r payment of r e n t , o r performance of other conditions. II S e c t i o n 42-105, R.C.M. 1947, simply s t a t e s : "The h i r e r of a t h i n g must r e p a i r a l l d e t e r i o r a t i o n s o r i n j u r i e s t h e r e t o occasioned by h i s o r d i n a r y negligence. tI I n Landt v. Schneider, 3 1 Mont. 15, 17,18, 77 P. 307, t h e Court s a i d : 11 I t i s an elementary p r i n c i p l e of law t h a t , i n t h e absence of a s t a t u t e o r agreement, t h e r e i s no implied warranty t h a t l e a s e d premises a r e s u i t a b l e f o r t h e purposes f o r which t h e y a r e demised, o r t h a t t h e l e s s o r w i l l keep t h e p r o p e r t y i n r e p a i r . 11 See a l s o : Kintner v. Harr, 146 Mont. 461, 482, 408 P.2d 487. ~ o n t a n a ' ss t a t u t e s were d e r i v e d from t h e C a l i f o r n i a C i v i l Code, s e c t i o n s 1941 and 1942. I n 1881, i n Van Every v. Ogg, 59 Cal. 563, 566, t h e C a l i f o r n i a Supreme Court w e l l s t a t e d t h e reasons f o r t h e two s t a t u t e s : "It i s i n s i s t e d t h a t t h e s e c t i o n l a s t c i t e d [42-2011, by o p e r a t i o n of law, i n s e r t s i n every l e a s e a covenant on t h e p a r t of t h e l a n d l o r d t o r e p a i r . But b e a r i n g i n mind t h a t a t t h e common law no such covenant was i m p l i e d , and r e a d i n g t h e two s e c t i o n s t o g e t h e r , t h e i n t e n t seems c l e a r t h a t t h e o b l i g a t i o n of t h e l a n d l o r d should be l i m i t e d by t h e e x t e n t of t h e p r i v i l e g e c o n f e r r e d upon t h e t e n a n t ; t h a t i t i s t h e duty of t h e l a n d l o r d t o r e p a i r upon n o t i c e , and i f he does n o t perform t h i s duty he i s t o b e compelled t o pay, by deduction from t h e r e n t , t o t h e e x t e n t of a month's r e n t a l - - - o r , a t t h e o p t i o n of t h e t e n a n t , t h e term be concluded w i t h o u t r e d r e s s t o t h e l a n d l o r d . " Then t h e C a l i f o r n i a Court went on t o p o i n t o u t t h a t p r i o r t o an amendment i n 1874, s e c t i o n 1942 of t h e i r c i v i l code r e a d : " " 1 f . w i t h i n a r e a s o n a b l e time a f t e r n o t i c e t o t h e l e s i o r of d i l a p i d a t i o n s which he ought t o r e p a i r , he n e g l e c t s t o do s o , t h e l e s s e e may r e p a i r t h e same h i m s e l f , and deduct t h e expenses of such r e p a i r s from t h e r e n t , o r otherwise r e c o v e r i t from t h e l e s s o r . I I 1 I n 1922, t h i s Court decided Noe v. Cameron, 62 Mont. 527, 532, 205 P. 256, a c a s e almost i d e n t i c a l t o t h e i n s t a n t a p p e a l . - I n Noe an a c t i o n was brought t o recover damages a l l e g e d t o have been s u s t a i n e d by p l a i n t i f f a s t h e l e s s e e of a h o t e l because of t h e f a i l u r e of defendant t o make r e p a i r s a f t e r n o t i c e was given by plaintiff. said: This Court, c i t i n g Bush v. Baker, 5 1 Mont. 326, 152 P. 750, ** These s e c t i o n s [42-201 and 42-2021, a s we a r e t o l d i n t h e r e p o r t of t h e Code Commission, were taken from C a l i f o r n i a , and i n v e s t i g a t i o n d i s c l o s e s t h a t t h e y came t o us w i t h a c o n s t r u c t i o n upon them which l e a v e s no room f o r doubt. [Cases c i t e d ] . T h i s c o n s t r u c t i o n i s t o the e f f e c t t h a t , i f the landlord f a i l s t o r e p a i r a f t e r n o t i c e , t h e t e n a n t may himself r e p a i r , w i t h i n a c e r t a i n l i m i t , o r move o u t ; b u t he has no r e d r e s s i n damages f o r i n j u r y t o person o r p r o p e r t y consequent upon t h e l a n d l o r d ' s f a i l u r e t o r e p a i r . Whether t h i s c o n s t r u c t i o n be r i g h t o r n o t , i t was presumably adopted w i t h t h e s e c t i o n s thems e l v e s , i t c o n s t i t u t e s a r u l e of p r o p e r t y , and t h e c o u r t s of t h i s s t a t e a r e w i t h o u t a u t h o r i t y t o a l t e r i t . 1 1 1 "'2 Beyond a doubt a h o t e l i s "a b u i l d i n g intended f o r t h e occupat i o n of human beings" and t h u s w i t h i n t h e scope of s e c t i o n s 42-201 and 42-202, R.C.M. 1947. Appellant had t h e c h o i c e o f making t h e r e p a i r s c a l l e d f o r by t h e l e t t e r of t h e f i r e marshal and deducting t h e c o s t from t h e r e n t payments, t o t h e e x t e n t of one month's r e n t , o r t o v a c a t e t h e premises. She cannot, however, r e c o v e r damages from respondents f o r t h e i r f a i l u r e t o put t h e h o t e l i n t o a condit i o n f i t f o r t h e occupation of human b e i n g s . This r e s u l t i s n o t a f f e c t e d by t h e f a c t t h a t one of t h e d i s c r e p a n c i e s a l l e g e d i n t h e l e t t e r of t h e f i r e marshal was t h e f i r e escape and t h a t t h e l e s s o r s had covenanted " t o keep and maintain t h e e x t e r i o r w a l l s of s a i d premises". Conceding f o r t h e sake of argument t h a t t h e f i r e escape was w i t h i n t h e d e f i n i t i o n of " e x t e r i o r w a l l s " and t h u s t h e duty of respondents t o r e p a i r i t , such c l a u s e i n t h e l e a s e added nothing t o t h e s t a t u t o r y d u t y of t h e l e s s o r s imposed by s e c t i o n 42-201, R.C.M. 1947. Since t h e language of t h e l e a s e added nothing t o t h e s t a t u t o r y d u t y , t h e l i m i t a t i o n of s e c t i o n 42-202, R.C.M. 1947, remains a p p l i c a b l e . W do n o t want t o be understood a s holding e t h a t t h e p a r t i e s could never c o n t r a c t i n excess of t h e s t a t u t o r y d u t i e s w i t h r e s p e c t t o d i l a p i d a t i o n s which rendered t h e premises u n t e n a n t a b l e . W merely e s t a t e t h a t t h i s i s n o t such a c a s e . I n a p p e l l a n t ' s t h i r d i s s u e on a p p e a l s h e a s s e r t s t h e complaint s t a t e s a c a u s e of a c t i o n i n t o r t and breach of c o n t r a c t based upon t h e d i s t u r b a n c e of h e r c o n t r a c t r i g h t t o q u i e t enjoyment of t h e premises. She i n t i m a t e s t h a t respondents a r e l i a b l e under t h i s t h e o r y of a c t i o n because respondent Root a l l e g e d l y r e q u e s t e d t h e county a t t o r n e y t o b r i n g a c t i o n a g a i n s t h e r f o r t h e purpose of o u s t i n g h e r from t h e l e a s e d premises. Her complaint a l s o h i n t s a t an a c t i o n f o r m a l i c i o u s p r o s e c u t i o n and t h a t ~ o o t ' sp o s i t i o n a s c i t y a t t o r n e y had some r e l e v a n c e t o h e r c a u s e of a c t i o n . Any h i n t of an a c t i o n f o r m a l i c i o u s p r o s e c u t i o n can be q u i c k l y disposed o f . Elements of t h a t a c t i o n , among o t h e r s , a r e : (1) t h e p r i o r proceeding must have t e r m i n a t e d i n f a v o r of t h e p r e s e n t p l a i n t i f f , and (2) t h e r e must be an absence of probable c a u s e f o r t h e i n s t i t u t i o n of such proceeding. $4. 54 C.J.S. 14alicious P r o s e c u t i o n , Here, t h e condemnation a c t i o n t e r m i n a t e d i n summary judgment i n f a v o r of t h e s t a t e . Cases c i t e d i n t h e Annotation, 4 1 ALR2d 1414, 1442, i l l u s t r a t e t h e r u l e t h a t where a t e n a n t ' s enjoyment i s i n t e r f e r e d w i t h i n t h e e x e r c i s e of t h e p o l i c e power, and i s n o t caused by t h e breach of any o b l i g a t i o n owed by t h e l a n d l o r d t o t h e t e n a n t , such i n t e r f e r e n c e does n o t c o n s t i t u t e a b r e a c h of t h e covenant f o r q u i e t enjoyment. Appellant seems t o a c c e p t t h i s a s a g e n e r a l r u l e b u t contends t h a t t h e a f f i r m a t i v e a c t i o n s of Root i n i n s t i g a t i n g t h e condemnation a c t i o n c o n s t i t u t e a b r e a c h of t h e q u i e t enjoyment covenant. A f t e r e x h a u s t i v e s e a r c h , we f i n d o n l y one c a s e having s i m i l a r facts. I n Dolman v. United S t a t e s T r u s t Co. of N . Y . , 134 N.Y.S.2d 508,510, t h e t r i a l c o u r t denied t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s motion t o d i s m i s s the complaint, s t a t i n g : "For, i f t h e p l a i n t i f f can s u p p o r t h i s c l a i m t h a t t h e defendant by i t s a f f i r m a t i v e a c t i n s t i g a t e d and f a c i l i t a t e d t h e condemnation proceedings [eminent domain] and t h e consequent e v i c t i o n , then i n m view t h e p l a i n t i f f h a s p r e s e n t e d y a c a u s e of a c t i o n f o r b r e a c h of t h e covenant of q u i e t enj oymen t 1 I . However, on a p p e a l Dolman was r e v e r s e d , 2 N.Y.2d 157 N.Y.S.2d 110, 138 N.E.2d 784, 537,541, t h e Court of Appeals h e l d " t h e t e n a n t was e v i c t e d by reason o n l y of t h e e x e r c i s e of t h e s o v e r e i g n power of eminent domain" and t h a t t h e l e s s o r ' s c o o p e r a t i o n w i t h t h e c i t y d i d n o t c o n s t i t u t e a b r e a c h of t h e covenant of q u i e t enjoyment. We are unwilling to hold that the scope of the covenant of quiet enjoyment precludes a lessor, knowing of violations of ordinances and statutes, from reporting such violations to the authorities. We should not require a lessor to risk damages being assessed against him because he has taken it upon himself to protect the public by reporting the facts to the authorities. Here, the district court in the condemnation action established that the defects on these premises constituted a fire hazard. The public interest is served by allowing any person who has knowledge of a risk to public health of safety, be he lessor or otherwise, to feel free to report such risk to the authorities without fear The intent of the lessor in of having later to respond in damages. reporting such a risk to public health and safety is immaterial, the public interest being paramount. The fact that lessor was the city attorney is likewise immaterial, there being no privity between the city and county attorneys. Root was in the position of any other private lessor. Having examined the issues raised and finding no merit, we affirm the judgment. We Concur: Justices / Hon. Gordon Bennett, sitting for Chief Justice James T. Harrison.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
