necessary repairs

In 1959, Victor Gruen purchased a painting by Gustav Klimt entitled Schloss Kammer am Attersee II for $8,000. Victor Gruen, an architect with residences in New York and Los Angeles, had a son, Michael Gruen, the plaintiff in this action. On April 1, 1963, Victor wrote a letter to Michael, then a student at Harvard, stating that he was giving him the painting for his twenty-first birthday but wished to retain possession during his lifetime. This original letter was later destroyed at Victor's direction. Subsequently, on May 22, 1963, Victor sent Michael another letter explaining that his lawyer advised against mentioning the life estate in writing for tax reasons and enclosed a substitute letter dated April 1, 1963, that conveyed the painting without reference to any retained interest. Michael retained both letters. The painting remained in Victor's possession, except for a brief loan to exhibitions between 1964 and 1965, and moved with him to Beverly Hills and then to Vienna, Austria. Victor Gruen died on February 14, 1980. After his death, Michael requested the painting from his stepmother, the defendant, who refused to turn it over. Michael then commenced this action seeking a declaration that he owned the painting. Following a seven-day nonjury trial, Special Term found that no valid inter vivos gift had been made. The Appellate Division reversed that determination and remitted the matter for a determination of the painting's value. After the value was set at $2,500,000, the defendant appealed directly to the Court of Appeals from the final judgment awarding damages to the plaintiff.

In the fall of 1993, a neighbor of Harvey and Lois Jacque purchased a mobile home from Steenberg Homes, Inc., with delivery included in the price. The Jacques, an elderly retired farming couple, owned approximately 170 acres near Wilke's Lake in the town of Schleswig, Wisconsin. Steenberg determined that the easiest delivery route crossed the Jacques' land rather than using a private road covered in up to seven feet of snow with a sharp curve requiring rollers. Steenberg asked the Jacques on several separate occasions whether it could move the home across the Jacques' farm field. The Jacques refused. The Jacques were sensitive about allowing others on their land because they had lost property valued at over $10,000 to other neighbors in an adverse possession action in the mid-1980's. On the morning of delivery, Mr. Jacque observed the mobile home parked on the corner of the town road adjacent to his property. Mr. Jacque informed the movers that it was the Jacques' land they were planning to cross and that Steenberg did not have permission to cross their land. Once everyone was present, the Jacques showed the assistant manager an aerial map and plat book of the township to prove their ownership of the land, and reiterated their demand that the home not be moved across their land. At that point, the assistant manager asked Mr. Jacque how much money it would take to get permission. Mr. Jacque responded that it was not a question of money; the Jacques just did not want Steenberg to cross their land. At trial, one of Steenberg's employees testified that, upon coming out of the Jacques' home, the assistant manager stated: "I don't give a — what [Mr. Jacque] said, just get the home in there any way you can." The employees, after beginning down the private road, ultimately used a "bobcat" to cut a path through the Jacques' snow-covered field and hauled the home across the Jacques' land to the neighbor's lot. When a neighbor informed the Jacques that Steenberg had, in fact, moved the mobile home across the Jacques' land, Mr. Jacque called the Manitowoc County Sheriffs Department. After interviewing the parties and observing the scene, an officer from the sheriffs department issued a $30 citation to Steenberg's assistant manager. The Jacques commenced an intentional tort action in Manitowoc County Circuit Court, Judge Allan J. Deehr presiding, seeking compensatory and punitive damages from Steenberg. The case was tried before a jury on December 1, 1994. For purposes of the motion, Steenberg admitted to an intentional trespass to land, but asked the circuit court to find that the Jacques were not entitled to compensatory damages or punitive damages based on insufficiency of the evidence. The jury awarded the Jacques $1 nominal damages and $100,000 punitive damages. The circuit court set aside the jury's award of $100,000. The court of appeals affirmed, reluctantly concluding that it could not reinstate the punitive damages because it was bound by precedent establishing that an award of nominal damages will not sustain a punitive damage award.

Several tenants rented apartments in Clifton Terrace, a three-building apartment complex in Northwest Washington, by separate written leases with First National Realty Corporation. On April 8, 1968, the landlord filed separate actions in the Landlord and Tenant Branch of the Court of General Sessions seeking possession on the ground that each tenant had defaulted in the payment of rent due for the month of April. The tenants admitted that they had not paid the landlord any rent for April but alleged numerous violations of the Housing Regulations as an equitable defense or claim by way of recoupment or set-off. The tenants offered to prove that there are approximately 1500 violations of the Housing Regulations of the District of Columbia in the building at Clifton Terrace, where the defendant resides, some affecting the premises of the defendant directly, others indirectly, and all tending to establish a course of conduct of violation of the Housing Regulations to the damage of defendants. They conceded at trial that this offer of proof reached only violations which had arisen since the term of the lease had commenced. The Court of General Sessions refused the offer of proof and entered judgment for the landlord. The District of Columbia Court of Appeals affirmed, rejecting the argument that the landlord was under a contractual duty to maintain the premises in compliance with the Housing Regulations. Because of the importance of the question presented, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit granted the tenants' petitions for leave to appeal.

In December 1991, defendants Michael Paxton and Amy Lowder rented an apartment in West Jordan, Utah, from plaintiff Building Monitoring Systems, Inc., under a month-to-month rental agreement. Shortly after moving in, they notified plaintiff’s resident manager that the plumbing and wiring in their apartment needed to be repaired. Although the manager attempted to make some minor repairs, the overall condition of the apartment remained unacceptable to defendants. On August 9, 1993, they complained to the Salt Lake City and County Health Department of an inoperable refrigerator, leaking sinks, decaying bathroom walls, and deteriorated carpeting. The Health Department determined that these conditions violated health department regulations and sent plaintiff a letter ordering it to make necessary repairs by September 7. On September 1, plaintiff served Paxton and Lowder with an eviction notice, effective September 30. However, the tenancy was reinstated when the manager accepted rent from them for the month of October. On or about October 12, defendants made another complaint to the Health Department, and they also gave plaintiff a written list of needed repairs. One day after plaintiff received notice of the complaint, it served defendants with another eviction notice, demanding that they vacate by October 31. When they did not do so, plaintiff brought this unlawful detainer action against them to compel them to yield possession of the premises and to pay its costs and attorney fees pursuant to Utah Code Ann. § 78-36-3(1)(b)(i). They countered that the court should enjoin plaintiff from carrying out the eviction because it was issued in retaliation for their complaints to the Health Department. The court agreed that the eviction was retaliatory but declined to recognize the defense because of the lack of statutory or case law defining it in Utah. Defendants appeal.