Javins v. First National Realty Corp., 428 F.2d 1071 (1970)

Citation: Javins v. First National Realty Corp., 428 F.2d 1071 (1970)
Parent Document: Javins v. First National Realty Corp., 428 F.2d 1071 (1970)
Jurisdiction: DC (municipal)
Effective Date: 1970-05-07
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8896568/javins-v-first-national-realty-corp/ ↗

Full Text

1,093 chars

Despite this trend in the sale of real estate, many courts have been unwilling to imply warranties of quality, specifically a warranty of habitability, into leases of apartments. Recent decisions have offered no convincing explanation for their refusal26; rather they have relied without discussion upon the old common law rule that the lessor is not obligated to repair unless he covenants to do so in the written lease contract.27 However, the Supreme Courts of at least two states, in recent and well reasoned opinions, have held landlords to implied warranties of quality in housing leases. Lemle v. Breeden, S.Ct.Hawaii, 462 P.2d 470 (1969); Reste Realty Corp. v. Cooper, 53 N.J. 444, 251 A.2d 268 (1969). See also Pines v. Perssion, 14 Wis.2d 590, 111 N.W.2d 409 (1961). In our judgment, the old no-repair rule can*1077not coexist with the obligations imposed on the landlord by a typical modern housing code, and must be abandoned28 in favor of an implied warranty of habitability.29 In the District of Columbia, the standards of this warranty are set out in the Housing Regulations. IV

Other Sections in This Document (106)

Full Text