Stare DCisis: Honoring the First of the Month

2005_0601_clifton2.jpgSo you're young, you're fun (by your own definition), and you've moved to what's been called, suspiciously, an up-and-coming neighborhood in the District. Your block has been diagnosed as early-stage gentrification, with one or two spruced up apartment buildings dispersed between the dilapidated early 20th century houses, one of which houses you. The stair railing's broken, the bricks are chipping, and the window bars need to be replaced. By someone else. Not you.

Javins v. First National Realty Company, a 1970 case, establishes the rule that landlords have to pay to keep buildings up to snuff, not tenants. The plaintiffs, residents of Clifton Terrace in D.C., claimed that they did not have to pay their rent because the apartment complex was falling apart -- to the tune of 1,500 separate housing code violations. The Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit held that a lease, like every other commercial contract, contains an implied promise that the seller has kept the property in good condition. By turning a property transaction into a contract transaction, the court single-handedly undid a millennium of Anglo-American law. Today's judicial activism, by contrast, only targets decisions from the past 100 years.

Technically, the case's ruling -- called the implied warrant of habitability -- only applies to D.C. but courts in many other jurisdictions came to follow the decision, penned by the great progressive Judge James Skelly Wright. Only a decade eariler, as a New Orleans judge, Skelly Wright led the movement to desegregate Tulane University. Though his Nawlins career could hardly be termed the Big Easy, meeting with Southern resistance at every turn, Skelly Wright, once on the D.C. Circuit, not only overturned nine centuries of property law in favor of the urban poor but handily convinced many other courts and state legislatures to do the same.

To understand how revolutionary Javins is as a decision, let's take it back to the old school, to the birth of American property law. The year is 1066, the Normans have invaded England, the king William I has acceded to the throne and secured the kingdom. Believe it or not, this great moment in British history continues to influence and underlie most major property law concepts in America. In the feudal system under William and his successors, the king owned all the land. Everybody else was just a tenant. Tenants made their living farming the land, and they rarely moved. Meanwhile, the lords were eating drumsticks and talking like Kenneth Branagh in stone castles far away. If there was a problem with the property, the tenants, who derived so much economic value from it, could and should fix it themselves.

But what do the flea-bitten potato farmers of yore have to do with the plaintiffs in Javins? Not terribly much, and Skelly Wright's opinion is remarkable only for recognizing as much. Land, today, is less important than the buildings and services attached to it:

[I]n the case of the modern apartment dweller, the value of the lease is that it gives him a place to live. The city dweller who seeks to lease an apartment on the third floor of a tenement has little interest in the land 30 or 40 feet below, or even in the bare right to possession within the four walls of his apartment. When American city dwellers, both rich and poor, seek 'shelter' today, they seek a well known package of goods and services -- a package which includes not merely walls and ceilings, but also adequate heat, light and ventilation, serviceable plumbing facilities, secure windows and doors, proper sanitation, and proper maintenance.
And further, unlike our hearty and hale British forbears, today's city-dweller has better things to think about than chopping wood and reading ye olde almanack to figure out which fields should lay fallow. A regular working stiff, "he is unable to make repairs like the 'jack-of-all-trades' farmer who was the common law's model of the lessee," the court noted. So the next time you, pansy modern renter, have to change a light bulb, you can thank Skelly Wright that you aren't repaving the driveway and installing the fire extinguisher, too.

Email This Entry


Comments (2) [rss]

Great article. It's true, the owner of a property has a whole lot a responsibility and liability. There are a number of attorneys out there who make a fortune suing property owners for injuries that ensue due their negligence. So, if you own a place and rent it out, be up to code and make sure (if you're in a condo) to have a good management company.

Brilliant. I had never heard of this case, thanks for making a bit of under-recognized modern history clear and interesting to read.

Post a comment (Comment Policy)

Tips

About DCist

DCist is a website about Washington, D.C. More

Editor: Sommer Mathis Publisher: Gothamist

Twitter

Contribute

Latest Tip:

We went to the Macy's at 12th & G this morning for the Black Friday morning specials. There was a sh
[more]

Latest Photo:

Recent Comments

Subscribe

Use an RSS reader to stay up to date with the latest news and posts from DCist.

All Our RSS