Question

Implied Warranty of Habitability Sharon Love entered into a written lease agreement with Monarch Apartments (Monarch) for apartment 4 at 441 Winfield in Topeka, Kansas. Shortly after moving in, she experienced serious problems with termites. Her walls swelled, clouds of dirt came out of the walls, and when she checked on her children one night, she saw termites flying around the room. She complained to Monarch, which arranged for the apartment to be fumigated. When the termite problem persisted, Monarch moved Love and her children to apartment 2. Upon moving in, Love noticed that roaches crawled over the walls, ceilings, and floors of the apartment. She complained, and Monarch called an exterminator, who sprayed the apartment. When the roach problem persisted, Love vacated the premises. Did Love lawfully terminate the lease? Who wins? Love v. Monarch Apartments, 13 Kan.App.2d 341, 771 P.2d 79, Web 1989 Kan.App. Lexis 219 (Court of Appeals of Kansas)

Answer 1

Love entered into a written lease agreement with Monarch and paid a security deposit. After tenant experienced a roach problem in her apartment, she moved out. Landlord refused to return her security deposit because she terminated her lease prior to its expiration date.

Tenant brought suit against landlord for the refund of her security deposit, damages for landlord's wrongful withholding of her security deposit under Kan. Stat. Ann. § 58-2550(c), and damages for landlord's breach of its statutory duty to provide habitable housing under Kan. Stat. Ann. § 58-2553.

The district court granted Love a judgment for the return of her security deposit less Monarch's cost of shampooing the carpet, but denied the statutory damages. Tenant appealed. The court (1) affirmed the district court's decision on the return of the security deposit because its finding was supported by substantial competent evidence, (2) reversed the district court's decision on damages under Kan. Stat. Ann. § 58-2550(c) because they were not discretionary, and (3) remanded the case for a determination of whether landlord breached its statutory duties under Kan. Stat. Ann. § 58-2553.

The court (1) affirmed the district court's decision on the return of the security deposit, (2) reversed the district court's decision on statutory damages for landlord's wrongful withholding of her security deposit, and (3) remanded the case for a determination of whether landlord breached its statutory duties to provide habitable housing.

Thus, Love did lawfully terminate the lease.