Duty exemption clause did not permit owners to direct utility to shut off water
services. — Where Plaintiffs brought a petition for restitution of possession of premises
against Resident based on unpaid rent and property damage, and where the magistrate
court entered a judgment for restitution in favor of plaintiffs and issued a corresponding
writ of restitution, ordering the sheriff to remove resident within seven days of entry of
the judgment, and where, prior to the execution of the writ of restitution, plaintiffs had
resident’s water shut off for unpaid water charges, and where, on appeal to the district
court, resident filed a counterclaim for unlawful diminution of services and seeking
abatement of rent for the days resident was without water service, the district court
erred in concluding that, because the utility was holding plaintiffs responsible for
resident’s unpaid water bill, the duty exemption clause, set forth in 47-8-36(A)(4) NMSA
1978, permitted plaintiffs to direct the utility to shut off the dwelling unit’s water services,
because, in this case, the utility had not acted to interrupt utility services before plaintiffs
directed the utility to do so. The duty exemption clause does not apply. Roser v.
Hufstedler, 2023-NMCA-040.
Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 49 Am. Jur. 2d Landlord and Tenant §
637 et seq.
Landlord and tenant: violation of statute or ordinance requiring landlord to furnish
specified facilities or services as ground of liability for injury resulting from tenant's
attempt to deal with deficiency, 63 A.L.R.4th 883.
51C C.J.S. Landlord and Tenant §§ 297, 298.