Main Menu

Dinh v. Raines

PROPERTY LAW
Supreme Court of Alaska (2024)
Erik Gordon

In Dinh v. Raines, 544 P.3d 1156 (2024), the supreme court held that violations of the warrant of habitability allow for recovery but not double recovery, willful diminution of services applies to utilities but not internet and cable, and failure to deliver possession of property does not entitle the tenants to damages. (Id. at 1178). Dinh rented one of his three permitted townhomes to Clayton and Raines, but Dinh simultaneously rented unpermitted housing space to others in the garage of the building causing issues for Clayton and Raines. (Id. at 1161–62). Raines claimed several issues such as the apartment becoming too hot, lacking hot water, cigarette smoke coming through the vents, and that the unauthorized tenants commandeered the internet and cable as well as utilities from their apartment, which Dinh was made aware of and refused to fix. (Id.). As a result of the issues, Raines refused to pay rent to Dinh, and Dinh ultimately sued to evict Clayton and Raines and recover the unpaid rent. (Id. at 1163). Clayton and Raines countersued alleging retaliation, unlawful entry, and “failure to maintain a habitable dwelling” among other things. (Id.). The superior court held that Clayton and Raines were entitled to damages for willful diminution of services and a reduction in “the value of the leasehold” including “exemplary damages” for each of the two violations (which the court later held to be double recovery). (Id. at 1164). On appeal, Dinh argued that he did not violate the warranty of habitability arguing that the superior court needed to perform a negligence analysis prior to awarding damages for diminution of value and that Dinh’s employees were the truly injured parties invalidating Raines’s counterclaim. (Id. at 1167–69). The court held that internet and cable do not qualify as essential services but held that utilities qualify, and that Dinh’s actions were “willful” leading to his liability. (Id. at 1170). The court also reasoned that Clayton and Raines did not avail themselves of damages for failure to deliver possession early enough to recover such damages as the pair failed to report the violations in writing within six months. (Id. at 1174). The court also held that double recovery was prohibited as it allowed the pair to recover twice on the same claim. (Id. at 1176–77). Thus, affirming and reversing in part, the supreme court held that violations of the warrant of habitability allow for recovery but not double recovery, willful diminution of services applies to heat, hot water, and electricity but not internet and cable, and failure to deliver possession of property does not entitle the tenants to damages. (Id. at 1178).

Dinh v. Raines

PROPERTY LAW
Supreme Court of Alaska (2024)
Erik Gordon

In Dinh v. Raines, 544 P.3d 1156 (2024), the supreme court held that violations of the warrant of habitability allow for recovery but not double recovery, willful diminution of services applies to utilities but not internet and cable, and failure to deliver possession of property does not entitle the tenants to damages. (Id. at 1178). Dinh rented one of his three permitted townhomes to Clayton and Raines, but Dinh simultaneously rented unpermitted housing space to others in the garage of the building causing issues for Clayton and Raines. (Id. at 1161–62). Raines claimed several issues such as the apartment becoming too hot, lacking hot water, cigarette smoke coming through the vents, and that the unauthorized tenants commandeered the internet and cable as well as utilities from their apartment, which Dinh was made aware of and refused to fix. (Id.). As a result of the issues, Raines refused to pay rent to Dinh, and Dinh ultimately sued to evict Clayton and Raines and recover the unpaid rent. (Id. at 1163). Clayton and Raines countersued alleging retaliation, unlawful entry, and “failure to maintain a habitable dwelling” among other things. (Id.). The superior court held that Clayton and Raines were entitled to damages for willful diminution of services and a reduction in “the value of the leasehold” including “exemplary damages” for each of the two violations (which the court later held to be double recovery). (Id. at 1164). On appeal, Dinh argued that he did not violate the warranty of habitability arguing that the superior court needed to perform a negligence analysis prior to awarding damages for diminution of value and that Dinh’s employees were the truly injured parties invalidating Raines’s counterclaim. (Id. at 1167–69). The court held that internet and cable do not qualify as essential services but held that utilities qualify, and that Dinh’s actions were “willful” leading to his liability. (Id. at 1170). The court also reasoned that Clayton and Raines did not avail themselves of damages for failure to deliver possession early enough to recover such damages as the pair failed to report the violations in writing within six months. (Id. at 1174). The court also held that double recovery was prohibited as it allowed the pair to recover twice on the same claim. (Id. at 1176–77). Thus, affirming and reversing in part, the supreme court held that violations of the warrant of habitability allow for recovery but not double recovery, willful diminution of services applies to heat, hot water, and electricity but not internet and cable, and failure to deliver possession of property does not entitle the tenants to damages. (Id. at 1178).