IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 2 SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION 3
4 HA YNESL Y BLAKE, ) ) SMALL CLAIMS CASE NO. SD1344-ll 5 Plaintiff, ) 6 ) ) DECISION AND ORDER 7 vs. ) ) 8 ) 9 ) LADERA TOWERS, ) 10 ) 11 ) Defendant. ) 12
14 INTRODUCTION 15 The matter before the Court came on PlaintiffHaynesly Blake claim against Defendant 16 Ladera Towers for $10,000.00 for Defendant's failure to remediate mold growth from a 17 condominium unit Plaintiff leased from Defendant. A trial on Plaintiffs claim was held before 18 the Honorable Benjamin C. Sison, Jr. who took the matter under advisement. Plaintiff appeared 19 ProSe and Attorney Seaton M. Woodley, III, Esq. appeared on behalf of Defendant. Having 20 reviewed the evidence presented and the applicable law, the Court now issues its Decision and
21 Order.
23 BACKGROUND 24 A lease agreement was entered into between Plaintiff Tenant and Defendant Landlord fo 25 lease of a condominium unit for a term commencing July 8, 2011 and terminating on July 31 26 2012. The condo unit leased by Plaintiff was part of a larger condominium complex run by on 21 site managers and other employees of Defendant. Plaintiff works for the US Military an 28 frequently travels off-island as part of his duties.
Page 1 of6 Soon after moving into his unit, sometime during the week of July 18 to July 22, 2011 2 Plaintiff reported to Defendant that the carpet in the area of his washer and dryer was wet 3 Defendant responded by installing and running a blower to dry the carpet. During the week o 4 July 25 to 29, 2011, Plaintiff once again reported to Defendant that the same carpet was one 5 again wet and in response, Defendant once again installed the blower to dry the carpet. 6 On July 29, 2011, Plaintiff informed Defendant that he would be travelling for a wee 7 and gave permission for Defendant to remove the blower from his unit in his absence. On Augus 8 7, 2011, Plaintiff returned to his unit and found that the water was turned off, furniture removed 9 mold on items, and the blower running to dry the carpet. The following day, on August 8, 2011 10 Plaintiff informed Defendant of the extent of the mold on personal items, clothes, furniture 11 shoes, books, and other items. Defendant informed him that Plaintiffs neighbor pointed out 12 water leak to and upon further investigation discovered the source of the leak was from a wate 13 pipe in Plaintiffs unit. Defendant promptly had the leaking pipe repaired. 14 Despite no visible signs of additional mold, on or about August 11, 2011, Plainti 15 relayed his concerns to Landlord that there was a high possibility of mold under the carpet. On o 16 about August 15, 2011, Defendant inspected Plaintiffs unit and confirmed the continue 17 presence of mold. Plaintiff asked that the carpet be removed and replaced. In response 18 Defendant agreed to pay for cleaning of Plaintiffs personal items and have the carpet and vent 19 cleaned but did not agree to have the carpet removed. 20 On or about August 17, 2011, a professional cleaning company, Guam Cleaning Masters 21 was retained by Defendant to clean the unit of mold. Guam Cleaning Masters conducted stea 22 cleaning of the carpet, upholstery, and dining chairs but did not undertake to determine whethe 23 mold existed under the carpet. Despite this cleaning, Plaintiff informed Defendant several day 24 later that the carpet remained heavily damp and showed Defendant that mold had sine 25 developed on drywall in the washing closet of the unit. In response, Defendant informed Plaintif 26 that he may terminate the lease and move upon thirty days notice. Plaintiff sought to find othe 27 accommodations and left the premises on October 13, 2011. 28
Page2of6 Plaintiff seeks damages against the Defendant in the amount of Ten Thousand Dollar 2 ($10,000.00), the maximum allowed under Small Claims Court. In Plaintiff's schedule o 3 damages submitted to the court, he is seeking full reimbursement for rents and utilities he pai 4 for the period of August 7, 2011 to October 13, 2011, moving expenses, laundry cleaning 5 additional fuel expenses, and damage to furniture and household items. Plaintiff received Tw 6 Thousand Dollars ($2,000.00) from insurance proceeds for damage to Plaintiff's personal effects 7
8 DISCUSSION 9 The Court finds that Defendant is liable to Plaintiff for Negligence, Breach of Landlord' 10 duty to repair the premises into a tenantable condition, Breach of the Implied Warranty o 11 Habitability, and Constructive Eviction. A tenant may proceed against landlord on a theory o 12 Negligence for Landlord's breach of its duty to maintain the premises in a safe condition b 13 failing to abate mold, which may cause damage to tenant's health, safety and life. Beck v J 14 H:olding Corp, NY Slip Op 08162, 12 AD3d 238](2004) In this case, Defendant was made awar 15 of a problem concerning wet carpet in Plaintiff's unit on July 18, 2011. Not withstandin 16 whether Defendant was obligated to make these repairs under the terms of their lease agreemen 17 with Plaintiff or under law, in undertaking the repairs, Defendant is required to exercis 18 reasonable care in discovering the source of the problem and thereafter undertaking a reasonabl 19 course of action in addressing the problem. Defendant's initial response to the situation b 20 employing blowers to dry the carpet we believe was inadequate, as it should have taken steps t 21 discover the reason the carpet was wet and remedy the problem rather than just the symptom. 22 Only after being notified by Plaintiff's neighbor, a number of weeks later, did Defendant becom 23 aware of the source of the wetness: leaking pipes, which it did repair. Unfortunately by the tim 24 defendant actually discovered the problem, substantial water and mold damage to Plaintiff' 25 personal effects and the unit had already occurred. Defendant's argument that Plaintif 26 exacerbated the mold problem by failing to leave on his air conditioning units while he wa 27 travelling is, in the opinion of the Court, without merit in that air conditioning units will probabl 28 not be sufficient to dry a leaking pipe, which is not repaired.
Page 3 of6 After being made aware that mold was present in the unit on August 8, 2011, Defendan 2 did not undertake to retain professional cleaners, Guam Cleaning Masters, until August 17, 2011 3 During this time period, mold certainly would have continued to grow and spread. Gu 4 Cleaning Masters did undertake to clean and remove mold from Tenant's Unit, but it failed t 5 check underneath tenant's carpet for mold in all likelihood at the direction of Defendant becaus 6 doing so would require that the carpet be removed and replaced at Defendant's expense. It i 7 unlikely that the presence of mold would not have been discovered under carpet which has bee 8 damp or wet for months and Defendant should have taken action to determine conclusive! 9 whether all mold in the unit had been removed. Plaintiff should not be expected to take th 10 Defendant's "word" that no mold existed under the carpet. 1 In addition to Landlord's failure t 11 initially determine and immediately remedy the source of the leaks, Landlord's failure to chec 12 under the carpet, also constitutes a breach of Landlord's duty to properly repair the lease l3 premises and Landlord is therefore liable to Tenant for damages proximately caused b 14 Landlord's failure to property repair the leased premises. Moreover, Defendant has failed t 15 repair Plaintiffs unit to a tenantable condition. Under Guam law, absent any agreement to th 16 contrary, landlord, to a residential lease must put the property into a tenantable condition fit fo 17 occupation, and repair any subsequent dilapidations, which render the premises untenantable. 1 18 GCA §511 01.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 2 SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION 3
4 HA YNESL Y BLAKE, ) ) SMALL CLAIMS CASE NO. SD1344-ll 5 Plaintiff, ) 6 ) ) DECISION AND ORDER 7 vs. ) ) 8 ) 9 ) LADERA TOWERS, ) 10 ) 11 ) Defendant. ) 12
14 INTRODUCTION 15 The matter before the Court came on PlaintiffHaynesly Blake claim against Defendant 16 Ladera Towers for $10,000.00 for Defendant's failure to remediate mold growth from a 17 condominium unit Plaintiff leased from Defendant. A trial on Plaintiffs claim was held before 18 the Honorable Benjamin C. Sison, Jr. who took the matter under advisement. Plaintiff appeared 19 ProSe and Attorney Seaton M. Woodley, III, Esq. appeared on behalf of Defendant. Having 20 reviewed the evidence presented and the applicable law, the Court now issues its Decision and
21 Order.
23 BACKGROUND 24 A lease agreement was entered into between Plaintiff Tenant and Defendant Landlord fo 25 lease of a condominium unit for a term commencing July 8, 2011 and terminating on July 31 26 2012. The condo unit leased by Plaintiff was part of a larger condominium complex run by on 21 site managers and other employees of Defendant. Plaintiff works for the US Military an 28 frequently travels off-island as part of his duties.
Page 1 of6 Soon after moving into his unit, sometime during the week of July 18 to July 22, 2011 2 Plaintiff reported to Defendant that the carpet in the area of his washer and dryer was wet 3 Defendant responded by installing and running a blower to dry the carpet. During the week o 4 July 25 to 29, 2011, Plaintiff once again reported to Defendant that the same carpet was one 5 again wet and in response, Defendant once again installed the blower to dry the carpet. 6 On July 29, 2011, Plaintiff informed Defendant that he would be travelling for a wee 7 and gave permission for Defendant to remove the blower from his unit in his absence. On Augus 8 7, 2011, Plaintiff returned to his unit and found that the water was turned off, furniture removed 9 mold on items, and the blower running to dry the carpet. The following day, on August 8, 2011 10 Plaintiff informed Defendant of the extent of the mold on personal items, clothes, furniture 11 shoes, books, and other items. Defendant informed him that Plaintiffs neighbor pointed out 12 water leak to and upon further investigation discovered the source of the leak was from a wate 13 pipe in Plaintiffs unit. Defendant promptly had the leaking pipe repaired. 14 Despite no visible signs of additional mold, on or about August 11, 2011, Plainti 15 relayed his concerns to Landlord that there was a high possibility of mold under the carpet. On o 16 about August 15, 2011, Defendant inspected Plaintiffs unit and confirmed the continue 17 presence of mold. Plaintiff asked that the carpet be removed and replaced. In response 18 Defendant agreed to pay for cleaning of Plaintiffs personal items and have the carpet and vent 19 cleaned but did not agree to have the carpet removed. 20 On or about August 17, 2011, a professional cleaning company, Guam Cleaning Masters 21 was retained by Defendant to clean the unit of mold. Guam Cleaning Masters conducted stea 22 cleaning of the carpet, upholstery, and dining chairs but did not undertake to determine whethe 23 mold existed under the carpet. Despite this cleaning, Plaintiff informed Defendant several day 24 later that the carpet remained heavily damp and showed Defendant that mold had sine 25 developed on drywall in the washing closet of the unit. In response, Defendant informed Plaintif 26 that he may terminate the lease and move upon thirty days notice. Plaintiff sought to find othe 27 accommodations and left the premises on October 13, 2011. 28
Page2of6 Plaintiff seeks damages against the Defendant in the amount of Ten Thousand Dollar 2 ($10,000.00), the maximum allowed under Small Claims Court. In Plaintiff's schedule o 3 damages submitted to the court, he is seeking full reimbursement for rents and utilities he pai 4 for the period of August 7, 2011 to October 13, 2011, moving expenses, laundry cleaning 5 additional fuel expenses, and damage to furniture and household items. Plaintiff received Tw 6 Thousand Dollars ($2,000.00) from insurance proceeds for damage to Plaintiff's personal effects 7
8 DISCUSSION 9 The Court finds that Defendant is liable to Plaintiff for Negligence, Breach of Landlord' 10 duty to repair the premises into a tenantable condition, Breach of the Implied Warranty o 11 Habitability, and Constructive Eviction. A tenant may proceed against landlord on a theory o 12 Negligence for Landlord's breach of its duty to maintain the premises in a safe condition b 13 failing to abate mold, which may cause damage to tenant's health, safety and life. Beck v J 14 H:olding Corp, NY Slip Op 08162, 12 AD3d 238](2004) In this case, Defendant was made awar 15 of a problem concerning wet carpet in Plaintiff's unit on July 18, 2011. Not withstandin 16 whether Defendant was obligated to make these repairs under the terms of their lease agreemen 17 with Plaintiff or under law, in undertaking the repairs, Defendant is required to exercis 18 reasonable care in discovering the source of the problem and thereafter undertaking a reasonabl 19 course of action in addressing the problem. Defendant's initial response to the situation b 20 employing blowers to dry the carpet we believe was inadequate, as it should have taken steps t 21 discover the reason the carpet was wet and remedy the problem rather than just the symptom. 22 Only after being notified by Plaintiff's neighbor, a number of weeks later, did Defendant becom 23 aware of the source of the wetness: leaking pipes, which it did repair. Unfortunately by the tim 24 defendant actually discovered the problem, substantial water and mold damage to Plaintiff' 25 personal effects and the unit had already occurred. Defendant's argument that Plaintif 26 exacerbated the mold problem by failing to leave on his air conditioning units while he wa 27 travelling is, in the opinion of the Court, without merit in that air conditioning units will probabl 28 not be sufficient to dry a leaking pipe, which is not repaired.
Page 3 of6 After being made aware that mold was present in the unit on August 8, 2011, Defendan 2 did not undertake to retain professional cleaners, Guam Cleaning Masters, until August 17, 2011 3 During this time period, mold certainly would have continued to grow and spread. Gu 4 Cleaning Masters did undertake to clean and remove mold from Tenant's Unit, but it failed t 5 check underneath tenant's carpet for mold in all likelihood at the direction of Defendant becaus 6 doing so would require that the carpet be removed and replaced at Defendant's expense. It i 7 unlikely that the presence of mold would not have been discovered under carpet which has bee 8 damp or wet for months and Defendant should have taken action to determine conclusive! 9 whether all mold in the unit had been removed. Plaintiff should not be expected to take th 10 Defendant's "word" that no mold existed under the carpet. 1 In addition to Landlord's failure t 11 initially determine and immediately remedy the source of the leaks, Landlord's failure to chec 12 under the carpet, also constitutes a breach of Landlord's duty to properly repair the lease l3 premises and Landlord is therefore liable to Tenant for damages proximately caused b 14 Landlord's failure to property repair the leased premises. Moreover, Defendant has failed t 15 repair Plaintiffs unit to a tenantable condition. Under Guam law, absent any agreement to th 16 contrary, landlord, to a residential lease must put the property into a tenantable condition fit fo 17 occupation, and repair any subsequent dilapidations, which render the premises untenantable. 1 18 GCA §511 01. Furthermore, a warranty of habitability is implied by law in residential leases 19 Green v Sumski, 10 Cal.3d 616, 517 P.2d 1168, 111 Cal.Rptr. 704 (1974). Accordingly 20 Defendant in this case would be liable to Plaintiff Tenant for failing to repair any conditio 21 rendering Plaintiffs unit untenantable. Defendant Landlord argues that the mere presence o 22 mold in this case does not render the leased premises "untenantable" and therefore there is n 23 breach of the implied warranty of habitability. This Court disagrees. Unchecked mold growth o 24 the leased premises does pose potential health hazards to those living in close proximity to th 25 mold. Defendant Landlord's failure or refusal to check whether mold existed under Plaintiff 26 1 The court is persuaded by an article provided by Plaintiff from the National Center for Disease Control and Prevention which 27 provides that proper remediation of mold on carpet typically requires that the carpets be removed. See CDC Article: Indoor 28 Environmental Quality.
Page 4 of6 unit constitutes a failure to repair the untenantable condition of leased premises. We further fin 2 that Plaintiff's unit was untenantable up to the time he left the unit in October 2013. 3 Finally, failure to repair and keep the premises in a condition suitable for the purposes fo 4 which they are leased has been held to constitute a constructive eviction. Stoiber v Honeychuck 5 101 Cal.App.3d 903, 162 Cal.Rptr. 194 Defendant claims that the mere presence of mold in thi 6 case also does not constitute a constructive eviction of Plaintiff. Again we disagree. Unchecke 7 mold growth as a result of Defendant's failure to check the carpet for mold it has reason t 8 believe is present renders the premises unsuitable as a personal residence. The damage 9 recoverable for wrongful eviction, actual or constructive, include whatever amounts ar 10 necessary to compensate the tenant for the detriment proximately caused by the eviction or like! 11 to result therefrom, including expenses of removal. Id. 12 Turning to the question of damages, Plaintiff's request for laundry cleaning expenses an 13 damage to furniture and household items would normally be granted as these were direct! 14 caused by Defendant's negligence. However Plaintiff has failed to provide any receipts or an 15 documents of reasonable detail, which would verify Plaintiff's claims. In addition, Plaintif 16 received Two Thousand Dollars ($2,000.00) in insurance proceeds, which presumably covere 17 the expenses and damage referenced above. Furthermore, Plaintiff's damage request in th 18 amount of Thirty-Six Dollars and Seventy-Two Cents ($36.72) for fuel expenses is denied a 19 there is no reliable evidence presented that these costs were proximately caused by any action o 20 inaction of the Defendant. 21 Plaintiff's request for reimbursement of rents and utilities he paid for the period o 22 August 7, 2011 to October 13, 2011 in the amount of Six Thousand Four Hundred Eighty On 23 Dollars and Ninety Three Cent ($6,481.93)2 is granted. The proper measure of damages fo 24 breach of implied warranty is rental abatement measured by the difference between the fair renta 25 value of the premises if they had been warranted and the fair rental value of the premises as the 26 were during occupancy by the tenant in the safe or unsanitary condition. Green v Sumsky, P.2 27 1168 (citing Mease v Fox (1972) Iowa, 200 N.W.2d 791, 797, Boston Housing Authority 28 2 $5,264.46 rent, $662.85 Power, $224.62 Water and $330.00 Cable.
Page 5 of6 Hemingway (1973) Mass., 293 N.E.2d 831,845 and Academy Spires, Inc. v Jones (1970) 10 2 N.J. Super. 395,261 A.2d 413,417). We find the fair rental value of the leased premises at zer 3 during the period of time Plaintiff requests reimbursement, given the high likelihood of th 4 presence of mold under the carpet. We also grant Plaintiffs damage request for moving expense 5 in the amount of One Thousand One Hundred Thirty One Dollars and Thirty Eight Cent 6 ($1,131.38) and hotel expenses in the amount of Two Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty Fo 7 Dollars and Thirty Cents ($2, 754.30) as these were necessary to compensate Plaintiff for th 8 detriment proximately caused by his constructive eviction or likely to result therefrom. 9
10 CONCLUSION 11
12 Based upon the foregoing, the Court finds in favor of Plaintiff. Plaintiff is ordered t 13 provide receipts for these expenses within fifteen (15) days of this Decision and Order to veri 14 his claims. 15 1 3 2013 16 SO ORDERED this _ _ day of _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _., 2013. 17
22 ~Refer=-- Superior Court of Guam
Page 6 of6