A Life of Luxury It Wasn’t

Have you ever rented an apartment unit in college or in the city? If so, you might recall a time when you encountered a noisy neighbor. Quick-build luxury apartments often breed noise pollution because management companies will sacrifice high quality building material for cheap alternatives. The result is disruptive noise, frustrated tenants, and deceptive leasing agents looking to sell units quickly.

Why am I so passionate about revealing the reality of quick-build luxury apartments? Perhaps because within a month of moving to Washington, D.C. and renting my first high rise apartment, I had no option but to terminate my lease. The upstairs neighbors stomped across the floor and slammed dresser drawers at all hours of the night making it impossible to sleep. After submitting more than eleven complaints over two weeks, the leasing office delayed addressing the disruptive conduct and suggested I wear earplugs. After taking more than two weeks to notify the neighbor, the leasing agency claimed there were no similar units available to transfer to, contrary to the information on the website.

This ongoing noise disturbance was not just an inconvenience; it was a violation to my right as a tenant to enjoy a quiet residential environment.

It was these experiences that made me so interested in the Fidelity Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Kaminsky case in Property Law. In this case, Kaminsky, a doctor, leased office space where anti-abortion protesters began protesting outside. After the landlord ignored his request to intervene, Kaminsky vacated the office when protestors blocked his access to his office and stopped paying rent. In order for Kaminsky to prevail on his constructive evictions claim and be awarded relief from paying rent, he had to show “(1) Fidelity intended that he no longer enjoy the premises, which intent the trier of fact could infer from the circumstances; (2) Fidelity, or those acting for Fidelity or with its permission, committed a material act or omission which substantial interfered with use and enjoinment of the premises for the lease purpose, here an office for the practice of medicines; (3) Fidelity’s act or omission permanently deprived Kaminsky of the use and enjoyment of the premises; and (4) Kaminsky abandoned the premises within a reasonable period of time after the act or omission.” The Court ruled in favor of Kaminsky on grounds that both action and lack of action can constitute “conduct” by the landlord which amounts to constructive eviction.

This doctrine of constructive eviction provides insights into resolving the dispute over whether the leasing agent’s omission in addressing the noise disturbances substantially interfered with my use and enjoyment of the apartment. Regarding (1), a trier of fact could infer my leasing agent’s intent that I no longer enjoy the premises, given that I notified the leasing agent several times of the impact the noise disturbances had on my enjoyment of living in the unit to no avail. (2) The leasing agent committed a material act or omission by failing to timely notify the upstairs neighbor of the noise disturbances which substantially interfered with my use and enjoyment of the apartment. (3) The leasing agent’s act or omission permanently deprived me of the use and enjoyment of my unit. (4) As a result, I abandoned and vacated the premise within four weeks, which was a reasonable period of time after the leasing agent’s conduct. As a result of the breach, the remedy was to stop paying rent and terminate the lease.

In my opinion, the outcome is ineffective because while the doctrine of constructive eviction provides a remedy to stop paying rent, it placed an undue burden on me. In most cases, renters are required to pay the early lease termination fee, moving costs, cleaning costs, and application fees to secure another apartment. The leasing agency benefits by collecting termination fees and re-letting the same unit to another tenant who may experience the same issue. Many jurisdictions, including D.C., have enacted tenant protections specifically to address constructive eviction issues. These protections recognize that the landlord is better positioned to mitigate tenant interference and protect their quiet enjoyment.

To find a middle ground between the doctrine constructive eviction and landlord duties to protect tenants, the rule should add consequences for landlords. For example, if a lease termination results from the landlord’s omission to address an ongoing conflict and substantially interfere with a tenant’s ability to use and enjoy the premise, then the landlord must be required to reimburse the tenant’s relocation expenses. This consequence will deter landlords from failure to act and incentivize them to ensure quiet enjoyment for all tenants.

While I was able to get out of this frustrating satiation, others ae not always as lucky. As city populations increases and affordable housing decreases, more families will have no choice but to reside in apartments, creating more opportunities for leasing agents to cut corners and fail to uphold their duties.

Rachel Dadoo is a student at the American University Washington College of Law

Image: Kidfly182, Grand Tier Luxury Apartments 001.