In 2005, the tenants signed a 6-month lease with the landlord. Upon the expiration of the lease, the tenants began to rent their apartment on a month-by-month basis. On August 26, 2009, the landlord gave the tenants 30 days' written notice terminating their month-by-month tenancy. When the tenants failed to vacate the premises within 30 days, the landlord filed an unlawful-detainer action against the tenants in the Limestone County District Court. Without the benefit of an attorney, the tenants filed a counterclaim alleging retaliatory eviction. After a bench trial (before a judge only, with no jury) on the unlawful-detainer and retaliatory-eviction claims, the district court ruled in favor of the landlord.
The tenants then amended their counterclaim to include charges of gross negligence, discrimination, bad faith, and defamation of character. The landlord moved for summary judgment on the amended complaint and the district court granted that motion. The tenants then appealed the decision to the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals. Alleging violation of Alabama Code § 35-9A-501(a), the tenants maintained that the apartment had toxic mold and a faulty ventilation system that allowed cigarette and other secondhand smoke to enter the apartment. In its motion for summary judgment, the landlord maintained that the tenants could not establish they had complained to a governmental agency with responsibility to enforce a housing or building code (pursuant to the same code section). The landlord also maintained that the tenants could not establish that the landlord knew about any of the complaints. The tenants maintained that they had complained to the—
The appeals court indicated that the Better Business bureau was not a governmental agency. The court found evidence of complaints to the attorney general's office after the eviction proceedings began. Although one of the tenants testified that she had complained to the attorney general's office before the eviction proceedings began, there was no evidence that the landlord knew about these complaints. Even though one of the tenants testified that she had complained to the mayor's office, there was no evidence to demonstrate that the mayor's office had the responsibility to enforce a building or housing code. Even though one of the tenants testified that she had complained to the fire department, there was no evidence that the landlord knew about the complaint.
For these reasons, the district court's decision to grant the motion for summary judgment was affirmed. See Leeth v. J & J Properties, decided on November 5, 2010.
Items on this web page are general in nature. They cannot—and should not—replace consultation with a competent legal professional. Nothing on this web page should be considered rendering legal advice.
Return to top.
Return to Legal Developments.
Real Estate Attorneys.
