Breezewood Management Company V. Maltbie And Burke, 411 N.e

871 Words4 Pages
Breezewood Management Company v. Maltbie and Burke, 411 N.E.2d 670 (1980)
Facts
On August 2, 1978, two students at IU Bloomington, Burke and Maltbie, signed a written lease with Breezewood Management in an apartment that was later found to be inhabitable.

The lease ran from August 17, 1978, to August 17, 1979. The apartment was located on First Street in downtown Bloomington. Burke and Maltbie were the only two lessees and agreed to pay $235 per month. They both agreed that they would split the rent and Burke would pay $122.50 and Maltbie would pay $112.50. The lease agreement that the lessees had signed contained an agreement that Breezewood Management would repair the functions of the bathroom and fix the water pipes to make sure that
…show more content…
Maltbie left the apartment on May 3, 1979 and notified Breezewood. He refused to pay any more rent and Breezewood allowed Burke to remain and pay his rate of $122.50 per month. Breezewood then sued Burke and Maltbie for balance due under the rental contract. Burke and Maltbie filed counterclaims; they wanted money for damages due to inhabitable conditions and abatement of rent. On November 2, 1979 the court entered judgement against Breezewood. The court granted Burke $580 on his counterclaim, and granted Maltbie $450 on his counterclaim. The judge also ordered the return of their security deposit.
Issues
1. Should Breezewood have been allowed to postpone the trial and file a motion for continuance?
2. Did the state have enough evidence to award the defendants their counterclaims under the implied theory of habitability?
3. Was the amount granted to Burke and Maltbie a reasonable amount based on the damages?
Holding
1. No. The date for trial was agreed upon by the defendants, their lawyers and their witnesses. Lewis (owner of Breezewood) simply filed the motion and walked away expecting it to be granted. The motion was unverified and untimely filed. The court allowed Breezewood to present their case; therefore there is no prejudice.

2. Yes. Bloomington housing code was in effect at the time of the lease. Landlord breached implied warranty of habitability. Burke and Maltbie had a reasonable expectation that their basic housing needs would be met. Tenants
    Get Access