Owner's Refusal to Comply with State Law Equals 'Constructive Eviction'

Facts: An owner and tenant entered into a lease that called for the tenant to pay for any modifications to the sprinkler system stemming from any changes the tenant made to the space. The lease made the owner responsible for installing a burglar alarm and fire alarm system.

The local fire chief informed the tenant and owner that the premises didn't comply with a state law that requires all commercial spaces to have state-approved fire and alarm systems. The owner refused to pay for making the sprinkler system compliant with state law. The tenant moved out, claiming “constructive eviction” that is, being forced out because of the owner's failure to maintain the building according to state law. Afterward, the owner sued the tenant for back rent. The tenant asked the court to dismiss the case.

Decision: A Massachusetts trial court ruled in favor of the tenant.

Reasoning: The court reasoned that the owner's failure to pay for the sprinkler system had a direct impact on the tenant's ability to operate its business, so the tenant was justified in vacating the premises and considering the lease terminated.

• Richard Aronovitz v. Break-Away Billards, June 2008