Got a call today from tenant about a roof leak. It has rained all night. He claims water dripped on his router and it is not working. I asked if he has renter's insurance. He said yes but his policy says that leaking roof is landlords neglent and cost may be covered by LL's insurance. I do not understand how i am neglent when this leak was just spotted today Saturday.

Not negligent LL, just that water won the game. We've had a lot of wind and water, and new leaks are being found.

" leaking roof is landlords neglent and cost may be covered by LL's insurance. I do not understand how i am neglent when this leak was just spotted today Saturday. "

Most (if not all) states imput in the lease that landlord has a duty to tenant to maintain the premises in habitable condition (the Warranty of Habitability).

The RURLTA (REVISED UNIFORM RESIDENT LANDLORD –TENANT ACT) provides that the warranty includes:

"Effective waterproofing and weather protection of the roof and exterior walls;"

MO has such an implied warranty imputed into the lease.

The date that you learned about the defect has nothing to do with who is responsible.

Check your LL/tenant laws.

I wouldn't rush to replace whole roof. This will show the judge or mediator that it was bad enough to take that kind of action.

I think the point you are missing. Is that you have to maintain a leak free roof. And not wait until it starts leaking.

Roofs are designed not to leak. And should be replaced before end of lifespan.

Not saying you did anything different than most people.

But from a legal point. You are still responsible if defective roofing materials or if you did not replace before the shingles were worn out.

But if hurricane or tornado that would be an act of god.

I like the repair concept, also this gadget is prolly much less than the deductible anyway.

A tenant called me that the roof in the master bedroom is leaking over the TV. I told them to either:

a) Cover the TV with plastic and unplug it OR

b) Move the TV and place a bucket under the leak

My tenant thought that since she pays rent, she shouldn't have to

do anything to protect her belonging from my roof leak.

My security camera caught her children going onto the roof to retrieve balls. Not her skinny 80 pound son, but the fat one about 200 pounds. He stepped on a area (Cant) and caused a crack in the roofing goods.

The lease says the tenant need to maintain renters insurance, they never got a policy.

The next month they deducted the cost of a new HDTV while the old TV was a Tube screen, worth under $50. They deducted $600 from the rent.

In eviction court I proved these facts. Since the tenant:

1) Didn't take any care to protect their TV

2) Allowed her son to walk on the roof and cause the damage

3) Didn't carry renters insurance

4) And lied about the value of their old TV

The tenant was give 3 days by the court to pay the back rent or an order would be given to remove them from the property.

Stupid... Crazy....Waste of my Time......

First I am debating this based on the worse Judge in one of my towns.

I always prep my cases and evidence based on having to deal with him.

Not like this is a case that is going to court anyway.

But to add another side or viewpoint to the discussion.

Lisa “ roofs with plenty of remaining lifespan leak sometimes.” Yes that would be unforeseen and not negligent. Like nail pops, storm damage.

Plenty: another way to look at it. You rent someone a car with bald tires. Tires blow out and cause an accident. Just because you had not spotted / noticed the bald tires before would not be a defense. But unforeseen like a nail or them running over something would be.

Also would be a difference if a roofer would say it was worn out and the whole roof was in bad shape.

Compared to it still had a couple years of life and you decided to go ahead and replace it now. Or storm damage, nail pops. Unforeseen.

Another case. Tenant falls thru a rotten floor. Saying you had not spotted the weak or rotten floor before, would not be a defense.

"A good router could be 1200 with all the fixins." Maybe a COMMERCIAL router, but I bought a top of the line router for $300. Just crazy

I had a storm roll through and blow a sheet of metal off a roof (metal roof). Landed on tenants car. Their insurance told them it was my responsibility. I called my insurance, they said tenant property is their responsibility and couldn't believe their insurance told them anything different. Tenant went back to their insurance and then it was covered. I would think the same thing would apply here.

I don't think you owe for the router, but if you decide to pay, the tenant gets prorated value for the router. You don't replace an old ordinary one with state of the art brand new one.

Plenty: the relevant case in MO seems to be King v. Moorehead, 495 S.W.2d 65 (1973), Missouri Court of Appeals, Kansas City District.

The court said:

" We adopt the view that a lease is not only a conveyance but also gives rise to a contractual relationship between the landlord and tenant from which the law implies a warranty of habitability and fitness by the landlord. Under contract principles a tenant's obligation to pay rent is dependent upon the landlord's performance of his obligation to provide a habitable dwelling during the tenancy. "

In short, in MO, NO STATUTE IS NEEDED. The courts have adopted a view that a warranty of habitability is IMPUTED (implied) in any lease for a residential property, and that landlord is responsible for providing all the the conditions that constitute habitable property, including a watertight roof. Thus, LL is responsible, not merely for FIXING the roof, but for PROVIDING a watertight roof, a duty of care at which you failed, and thus tenant is entitled to damages for all detriment proximally caused by the LL’s failure to perform his obligations under the contract.

"Same as replacing carpet... you don't get to bill the tenant for brand new carpet when you are replacing seven year old carpet."

A number of well established LLs here have said they bill tenant for cost of putting in carpet if they otherwise didn't have to.

" This did not make the property uninhabitable. "

Yes, it did. See RURLTA. The court will use this definition, statute or not.

A landlord has the duty to make all repairs and to do or to refrain from doing whatever is necessary to assure that the premises are maintained in a habitable condition. At minimum, the duty to maintain requires the landlord to ensure that the premises:

1) ...

2) have effective waterproofing and weather protection of the roof and exterior walls, including windows and doors;

" A number of well established LLs here have said they bill tenant for cost of putting in carpet if they otherwise didn't have to. "

Do you think that they get away with it, if taken to court?

Plenty: The time frame applies to landlord/tenant law.

LL's liability is a result of bilateral contract regarding Warranty of Habitability as obligation under contract law. Repair of habitability repairs are not subject to any grace period for landlord.

For example, a tenant is not required to have to spend even a single night in an uninhabitable dwelling. He can move out immediately without consequence of the lease. King v. Moorhead makes clear that, even if he stays, he does not owe rent for the period that the dwelling is uninhabitable.

Missouri Landlord Tenant handbook says only " If repairs are needed, ASK the landlord to make repairs within a reasonable period of time. "

The handbook gives the above paragraph in a section titled simply "Repairs", there is no section in the Missouri handbook dealing with uninhabitability.

P.S., I don't find references like state LL/Tenant handbooks to be a very good source of information. What information they contain are meant as general reference for people looking up simple and common problems, and IT IS NOT A SUBSTITUTE for the law itself.

Yes, "they" claim this, and often do it.

What happens to them if tenant takes them to court over it?

Missouri law gives very specific processes for the tenant to withhold rent for certain violations of the warrant of habitability. I will summarize in brief:

1) The Tenant must first report the issue to the LL and allow "reasonable time" for the land lord to repair, defined as 14 days.

2) If the LL objects to the necessity of the repair, the Tenant must notify local code enforcement, who must then document the condition and the need--if any--for the repair. If the repair is in fact required, the land lord typically has a "reasonable time" to make the repair. I have not seen a hard-and-fast rule on it, but I again believe this is 14 days after the inspector mails findings to the LL requiring repairs.

3) If the land lord STILL fails to make the repair and/or fails to respond to the original request, the tenant may withhold half the rent up to $300 to pay for the repairs in a workmanlike manner.

The tenant cannot unilaterally decide to move out and/or terminate the lease without being held liable for the consequences. To terminate a lease due to uninhabitable living conditions, the tenant must sue the land lord in court and have the judge terminate the agreement.

Leases in Missouri cannot be terminated by one party acting unilaterally. Both parties must agree to terminate, or the courts must terminate by act of judgment.

Regarding Moshe's reference to case law: YES, the court decision says "dependent upon the landlord's performance of his obligation to provide a habitable dwelling", but keep in mind that following the above set of procedures outlined above IS the gold standard of whether or not the landlord has failed in 'providing a habitable dwelling.'

In short, if a tenant wakes up one night and finds a leak in the roof that doesn't mean he gets to stop paying rent immediately and demand the LL pay for a hotel. The tenant must follow the process outlined above, and if the land lord fails to respond as mentioned....THEN the land lord has failed to provide a habitable dwelling.

I know this because about 3 years ago I sat thru a trial once while waiting for my turn. The plaintiff tried every tactic in the book to justify why they didn't pay the rent, including showing pictures of a toilet that was about to fall thru the rotting floor of the bathroom. The rest of the house was a similar maintenance disaster. I honestly thought the plaintiff would win, but to the judge it came down to "Did you follow the procedure in the RSMO and notify the LL to correct the issue, and did the LL fail to correct the problem, and did you then pay to correct the problem using the part of the rent the law says you can?"

No, the tenant did just what happens in a lot of cases: quit paying and figured that was okay because there was an outstanding maintenance issue.

Again, I'm not siding with the slum lord. This person really did 'deserve' to lose in my opinion, but the judge held to the law, and the law says there is a process to follow. Since the tenant did not send the proper notices or follow the proper steps and there was no third party inspector/code enforcer to confirm the claims of lack of habitability, the land lord had NOT failed in his duty.

Love it, hate it, or insult it.... that's just the way it works in my State, County. Based on Moshe's past opinions of our laws/judges that makes us all a bunch of unsophisticated hicks. But that's how it works. This aint California, Toto. YMMV.

Typo...I should have said, "the DEFENDANT tried every tactic"...."I thought the DEFENDANT would win".