Preview:

CLIFF CARDWELL, Plaintiff-Appellant v. BRENDA HENRY, DefendantAppellee No. COA00-1027 (Filed 17 July 2001) Landlord and Tenant--implied warranty of habitability--breach-calculation of damages There was competent evidence in a nonjury trial to support the trial court's findings and conclusions that plaintiff breached the implied warranty of habitability; however, defendant's damages were improperly calculated. Appeal by plaintiff from judgment dated 14 June 2000 by Judge William G. Jones in Mecklenburg County District Court. the Court of Appeals 23 May 2001. Harkey, Lambeth, Nystrom, Fiorella & Morrison, L.L.P., by Jeffrey S. Williams-Tracy, for plaintiff-appellant. Legal Services of Southern Piedmont, Inc., by Linda S. Johnson and Theodore O. Fillette, for defendant-appellee. WALKER, Judge. Plaintiff was the owner of residential premises located at 1005 Andrill Terrace (the premises) in Charlotte (the City). Defendant has lived at the premises since 1992 pursuant to a series of oral leases. On 10 September 1999, plaintiff entered into a Heard in

written lease with defendant agreeing to pay a monthly rental rate of $360 due on or before the first day of each month. Beginning in

November 1999 and continuing through 31 January 2000 when plaintiff sold the premises, the premises had certain defects which violated the City's Housing Code. These defects included unsafe electrical

wiring, which caused defendant an insufficient supply of electrical power, often rendering useless the premises' heat, hot water, and appliances. During this time, defendant's payment of rent was not

always timely. On 22 December 1999, plaintiff received a complaint and notice of hearing from the City regarding violations of the housing code on the premises. That same day, plaintiff filed a complaint for

summary ejectment against defendant for breach of the lease by nonpayment of rent. On 11 January 2000, defendant answered and

counterclaimed, alleging breach of implied warranty of habitability and unfair or deceptive trade practices. After the small claims court found for plaintiff, defendant appealed to the district court. By judgment dated 14 June 2000,

the district court concluded plaintiff had breached the implied warranty of habitability and committed "unfair or deceptive acts in commerce in violation of N.C.G.S.

Download 00-1027-6.pdf

South Carolina Law