King v. Moorehead, 495 S.W.2d 65 (1973)

Citation: King v. Moorehead, 495 S.W.2d 65 (1973)
Parent Document: King v. Moorehead, 495 S.W.2d 65 (1973)
Jurisdiction: Missouri (state)
Effective Date: 1973-04-02
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1683367/king-v-moorehead/ ↗

Full Text

1,469 chars

This dilemma is avoided by recognizing that the modern lease is a bilateral contract so that the tenant’s obligation for rent is dependent upon the landlord’s performance of his responsibilities, among them, his implied warranty of habitability. Breach of this duty justifies retention of possession by the tenant and withholding of rent until habitability has been restored. A tenant who retains possession, however, shall be required to deposit the rent as it becomes due, in custodia legis pending the litigation. See and compare Javins v. First National Realty Corporation, supra, 428 F.2d 1. c. 1083 note 67 [14, 15]; Hinson v. Delis, supra, 102 Cal.Rptr. 1. c. 666 [9], This procedure as-sues the landlord that those rents adjudicated for distribution to him will be available to correct the defects in habitability, and will also encourage the landlord to minimize the tenant’s damages by making tenantable repairs at the earliest time. Also, for good cause and in a manner consistent with the ultimate right between the parties, a trial court will have discretion to make partial distribution to the landlord before final adjudication when to deny it would result in irreparable loss to him. We conclude also that this procedure is that most compatible with policy of our Legislature, of the Housing Code of Kansas City and of the implied warranty of habilitability remedy itself that there be preserved and maintained an adequate supply of habitable dwellings.

Other Sections in This Document (163)

Full Text