Quiet Enjoyment of Property
- Aryav Sharma
- 2 hours ago
- 2 min read
Laws are not meant to convict, but rather to serve. Laws allow for order in society, not solely conviction. While there is a common understanding that most laws are meant to convict the general public and serve those who convict, there are a select few that protect and serve the benefit of the public. One of these several laws are the laws outlining quiet enjoyment of property. While these laws do not only serve the public, they serve a large role in protecting the rights of tenants or those renting out a property. This blog aims to explain quiet enjoyment of property so that both those renting and those giving out rental contracts may be able to fully understand and use their rights.
As the Legal Information Institute at the Cornell Law School explains, “Quiet enjoyment is the right to inhabit or use certain property without disturbance.” In practice the law protects tenants from disturbances or hindrances. This law protects residents from being subject to under par living conditions due to a tenant who wishes to evict a resident. This would look like intentionally cutting off water supply or gas and heating with the intention of the resident leaving. The quiet enjoyment of property laws simply explained do not allow such actions and allow for a lawsuit to be filed. Obviously there is more to it, but that is a simplified version.
Within the laws regarding quiet enjoyment, there is the idea of a covenant of quiet
enjoyment. The idea is that an agreement in lease allows a tenant to be required to have quiet and peaceful ownership of the land and/or apartment they had bought. Similar to the case stated in the earlier paragraph, a breach of a covenant of quiet enjoyment would look like construction interfering with life forcing the tent to move out. What this clause also adds is breach can also be used on grounds of broken implied warranty of habitability. This could look like dust interfering with quality of living.
In Massachusetts chapter 186 section 14 of the General Court of the Commonwealth states a very similar idea of the law. The text states if a landowner willingly intrudes on a tenants rights to services not limited to but including “water, hot water, heat, light, power, gas, elevator service, telephone service, janitor service or refrigeration service to any occupant of such building or part thereof,” can and will be subject to fines and potential jail time in as punishment for actions.
While not directly on the cause of quiet enjoyment of property, it was used as a point in the opinion of the court delivered by the supreme court. The case was argued regarding the St. Croix River in between Wisconsin and Minnesota. The case was regarding considering land in the area as a single unit rather than separate. In the opinion of the court the claims were rejected on the grounds that enjoyment of property was allowed and was possible on several instances
Thanks for your time and I appreciate you reading this blog.
Comments