---

Posted by TenantNet on June 12, 1996 at 17:25:02:

In Reply to: Re: Info Disclosure:HELP!!! posted by Sam Robinson on June 12, 1996 at 16:05:44:

: : I just found out from my neighbor that the previous tennants had a litter
: : of dogs in the apt. It makes sense due to my huge alergic reaction in the apt.
: : Doesn't the apt complex have an obligation to inform me of such details ???

: I don't see which state you live in. In California the
: argument would be under implied habitability and/or quiet enjoyment.
: As always, who knows what a given judge will decide on a given day.

A bit off the mark. The "warranty of habitability" (which -- as it sounds -- means that
a landlord warrants that a given rental premises is "habitable") is
statutory in some states (NY) and accepted by implication in various
other states. Usually this refers to hazardous conditions or any
condition dangerous to health and safety of the resident. To the
extent that a landlord is required to perform maintenance, a condition
such as this (once discovered) might possibly fall under this area, but that might
be a bit tenuous (albeit arguable). I'm not aware of any regulation
anywhere that requires an owner to disclose that a prior occupant had
one or more pets.
"Quiet Enjoymennt" has often been misconstrued. It does not necessarily
refer to the right to have quiet surroundings (from an acoustic or
audible sense). It means that an owner will not attempt to remove you
from the premises during the term of your lease (assuming all normal
conditions are met - such a rent payment - and assuming you are not
otherwise in violation of your lease). It's more like "quiet title"
without fear of claims on the title by third parties. Even so it is
commonly used by tenants, landlords and even professionals in the
acoustical sense (or in this case freedom from an allegic reaction --
that one would have the right to "quietly enjoy" his premises).

Follow Ups:

---

Note: Posting is disabled in all archives
Post a Followup

Name    : 
E-Mail  : 
Subject : 

Comments:
: : : I just found out from my neighbor that the previous tennants had a litter
: : : of dogs in the apt.  It makes sense due to my huge alergic reaction in the apt.
: : : Doesn't the apt complex have an obligation to inform me of such details ???

: : I don't see which state you live in. In California the
: : argument would be under implied habitability and/or quiet enjoyment.
: : As always, who knows what a given judge will decide on a given day.

: A bit off the mark. The "warranty of habitability" (which -- as it sounds -- means that
: a landlord warrants that a given rental premises is "habitable") is
: statutory in some states (NY) and accepted by implication in various
: other states. Usually this refers to hazardous conditions or any
: condition dangerous to health and safety of the resident. To the
: extent that a landlord is required to perform maintenance, a condition
: such as this (once discovered) might possibly fall under this area, but that might
: be a bit tenuous (albeit arguable). I'm not aware of any regulation
: anywhere that requires an owner to disclose that a prior occupant had
: one or more pets.
: "Quiet Enjoymennt" has often been misconstrued. It does not necessarily
: refer to the right to have quiet surroundings (from an acoustic or
: audible sense). It means that an owner will not attempt to remove you
: from the premises during the term of your lease (assuming all normal
: conditions are met - such a rent payment - and assuming you are not
: otherwise in violation of your lease). It's more like "quiet title"
: without fear of claims on the title by third parties. Even so it is
: commonly used by tenants, landlords and even professionals in the
: acoustical sense (or in this case freedom from an allegic reaction --
: that one would have the right to "quietly enjoy" his premises).



Optional Link URL:  
Link Title:         
Optional Image URL: 

---