Kline v. Burns, 111 N.H. 87 (1971)

Citation: Kline v. Burns, 111 N.H. 87 (1971)
Parent Document: Kline v. Burns, 111 N.H. 87 (1971)
Jurisdiction: New Hampshire (state)
Effective Date: 1971-04-05
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1895971/kline-v-burns/ ↗

Full Text

1,104 chars

The court also found that “ although there were certain violations of the Building Code . . . these are not determinative of the rights of the parties. It seems clear from the testimony that if violations existed at the time of the original tenancy that the defendant tenants had equal knowledge of at least obvious defects .... Both tenants possessed the option of either (1) not entering into the tenancy, or (2) vacating when latent defects became known. Further, neither tenant made known the complaints of the conditions of the premises, and most of the defects complained of were discovered by routine inspection procedures of City officials. The proper action for enforcing the ordinance rests with the City officials and once their attention was directed to the violations, it was their duty to act ... . It has long been the general rule of law that, absent an agreement to repair, the tenant may not refuse to pay rent because of the landlord’s failure to repair .... It is the Court’s opinion that, in the absence of statute or ordinance, they cannot continue to occupy the premises rent-free.

Other Sections in This Document (39)

Full Text