{ "id": 11467275, "name": "CHARLES E. CONLEY and wife, ANNA M. CONLEY, CHARLES W. CONLEY and wife, REGINA M. CONLEY, ROBERT D. CONLEY and wife, PATRICIA A. CONLEY, WILLIAM V. CONLEY and wife, JANET L. CONLEY, KATHERINE M. CONLEY, BRIAN Z. TAYLOR, GUARDIAN AD LITEM for STEPHANIE A. CONLEY, JAMES M. AYERS, II, GUARDIAN AD LITEM for MICHAEL W. CONLEY, Plaintiffs v. EMERALD ISLE REALTY, INC., HENRY B. INGRAM, JR., and wife, LUCY G. INGRAM, KATHERINE J. INGRAM, ANNE M. INGRAM, HENRY B. INGRAM, III, ELIZABETH L. INGRAM, Defendants", "name_abbreviation": "Conley v. Emerald Isle Realty, Inc.", "decision_date": "1998-07-21", "docket_number": "No. COA97-1388", "first_page": "309", "last_page": "314", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "130 N.C. App. 309" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.", "id": 14983, "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "31 N.E. 286", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.", "year": 1892, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "286" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "176 S.E.2d 306", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1970, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "8 N.C. App. 631", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8554421 ], "year": 1970, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/8/0631-01" ] }, { "cite": "294 S.E.2d 209", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1982, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "306 N.C. 384", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8569513, 8569549, 8569485, 8569582, 8569615 ], "year": 1982, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/306/0384-02", "/nc/306/0384-03", "/nc/306/0384-01", "/nc/306/0384-04", "/nc/306/0384-05" ] }, { "cite": "290 S.E.2d 763", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "765-66" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "57 N.C. App. 109", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8522285 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "111-112" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/57/0109-01" ] }, { "cite": "289 S.E.2d 363", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "366", "parenthetical": "summary judgment not proper if genuine issue of material fact exists" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "305 N.C. 366", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8569908 ], "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "369", "parenthetical": "summary judgment not proper if genuine issue of material fact exists" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/305/0366-01" ] }, { "cite": "472 S.E.2d 770", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "772" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "344 N.C. 160", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 867686 ], "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "163-64" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/344/0160-01" ] }, { "cite": "291 S.E.2d 889", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "891" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "57 N.C. App. 556", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8525223 ], "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "559" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/57/0556-01" ] }, { "cite": "501 P.2d 17", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.2d", "case_ids": [ 1220996 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1972, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "19", "parenthetical": "\"In residential short-term lease situations, we believe the duty of due care is owed to a tenant ... to maintain premises free from 'unreasonably dangerous' instrumentalities that could potentially cause injury.\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ariz-app/18/0176-01" ] }, { "cite": "225 N.E.2d 311", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 3, "year": 1967, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "holding that landlord impliedly covenanted that furnished summer cottage was suitable for its intended use" }, { "page": "312" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "250 S.E.2d 245", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1979, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "247" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "296 N.C. 382", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8566231 ], "year": 1979, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "383" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/296/0382-01" ] }, { "cite": "94 S.E.2d 911", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1956, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "914" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "244 N.C. 732", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2219496 ], "year": 1956, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "736" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/244/0732-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 655, "char_count": 14394, "ocr_confidence": 0.771, "pagerank": { "raw": 6.770845263994211e-08, "percentile": 0.409740297600362 }, "sha256": "a98f3c99b5ec1538224c79253d57ea2cc872767190f4fd4cff1b44ad612fb565", "simhash": "1:07fb94208b2d763a", "word_count": 2371 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:24:27.441929+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges MARTIN, Mark D. and TIMMONS-GOODSON concur." ], "parties": [ "CHARLES E. CONLEY and wife, ANNA M. CONLEY, CHARLES W. CONLEY and wife, REGINA M. CONLEY, ROBERT D. CONLEY and wife, PATRICIA A. CONLEY, WILLIAM V. CONLEY and wife, JANET L. CONLEY, KATHERINE M. CONLEY, BRIAN Z. TAYLOR, GUARDIAN AD LITEM for STEPHANIE A. CONLEY, JAMES M. AYERS, II, GUARDIAN AD LITEM for MICHAEL W. CONLEY, Plaintiffs v. EMERALD ISLE REALTY, INC., HENRY B. INGRAM, JR., and wife, LUCY G. INGRAM, KATHERINE J. INGRAM, ANNE M. INGRAM, HENRY B. INGRAM, III, ELIZABETH L. INGRAM, Defendants" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "GREENE, Judge.\nWilliam V. Conley and wife, Janet L. Conley (William and Janet Conley); Michael W. Conley, by his guardian ad litem, James M. Ayers, II; Charles E. Conley and wife, Anna M. Conley; Charles W. Conley and wife, Regina M. Conley; Robert D. Conley and wife, Patricia A. Conley; Katherine M. Conley; and Stephanie A. Conley, by her guardian ad litem, Brian Z. Taylor (the Conley family) (collectively, plaintiffs) appeal from the granting of summary judgment in favor of Emerald Isle Realty, Inc. (Emerald Isle); Henry B. Ingram, Jr. and wife, Lucy G. Ingram; Katherine J. Ingram; Anne M. Ingram; Henry B. Ingram, III; and Elizabeth L. Ingram (the Ingrams) (collectively, defendants).\nEmerald Isle, in the business of selling and leasing beach cottages, contracted with the Ingrams to lease the furnished cottage owned by the Ingrams. On 22 January 1994, William and Janet Conley made reservations with Emerald Isle to stay at the Ingrams\u2019 cottage from 24 July 1994 to 7 August 1994. Emerald Isle sent a letter to William and Janet Conley confirming the reservation of the cottage and requesting payment. The letter detailed that the cottage would house up to fifteen people. William and Janet Conley paid Emerald Isle the deposit and balance for rental of the Ingrams\u2019 beach cottage. On 30 July 1994, the plaintiffs were standing on the second story sound-side deck of the cottage when it collapsed; the plaintiffs suffered severe bodily injuries as a result.\nMark Wax (Wax), the president of Emerald Isle, testified that his company had a contract with the Ingrams for the rental of their cottage which addressed the specific obligation of Emerald Isle to maintain and repair the cottage. Neither party, however, presented that contract into evidence. Wax did testify that Emerald Isle provided \u201cmaintenance and housekeeping\u201d for the cottage but \u201cthe extent to which [Emerald Isle] provide[d] maintenance and housekeeping depended] on [Emerald Isle\u2019s] relationship and agreements with the owners.\u201d Michael Rogers (Rogers), Maintenance Director for Emerald Isle, met with the Ingrams once or twice each year to discuss any maintenance needs. Rogers\u2019 duties also included receiving and addressing complaints from renters checking in and out of the cottage. Rogers had inspected and repaired an ocean-side deck on the Ingram cottage prior to the plaintiffs\u2019 stay, but had not made the same inspection of the sound-side deck.\nGeorge R. Barbour, a professional engineer, testified that the sound-side deck collapsed because of corroded nails and the absence of lag bolts.\nThe plaintiffs\u2019 complaint alleges that the defendants were negligent in failing to inspect and repair the sound-side deck on the Ingrams\u2019 cottage and that the injuries they sustained were the proximate cause of this negligent conduct. The plaintiffs further allege that the defendants agreed to provide a \u201csafe and habitable location for the plaintiffs to stay\u201d and that the defendants breached that agreement.\nThe issues are whether: (I) the owner of a furnished vacation home who rents it for a two-week period of time impliedly warrants that it is suitable for occupancy; (II) the rental agency that rents a furnished vacation home on behalf of the owner for a two-week period of time impliedly warrants that it is suitable for occupancy; and (III) such an implied warranty of suitability, if it exists, extends to the guest(s) of a tenant who rents a furnished vacation home for a two-week period.\nI\nThe Ingrams argue that their relationship with the plaintiffs is one of landlord and tenant. Relying on Robinson v. Thomas, 244 N.C. 732, 736, 94 S.E.2d 911, 914 (1956), the Ingrams therefore contend that they have no liability unless there is a showing that at the time of the letting of the premises they had knowledge of the dangerous defect in the premises that caused the plaintiffs\u2019 injuries. The plaintiffs argue that they were invitees of the Ingrams, and as such, the Ingrams were required, pursuant to Rappaport v. Days Inn, 296 N.C. 382, 383, 250 S.E.2d 245, 247 (1979), \u201cto exercise due care to keep [the] premises in a reasonably safe condition and to warn [the plaintiffs] of any hidden peril.\u201d\nNeither party contends that the North Carolina Residential Rental Agreements Act (the Act), codified at N.C. Gen. Stat. ch. 42, art. 5, applies to the facts of this case; and we agree that it does not. The Act, which requires that the landlord \u201ckeep the premises in a fit and habitable condition,\u201d N.C.G.S. \u00a7 42-42(a)(2) (Supp. 1997), applies only to a dwelling unit used as a tenant\u2019s \u201cprimary residence,\u201d N.C.G.S. \u00a7 42-40(2) (1994). In this case, there is no dispute that the vacation home was not the plaintiffs\u2019 primary residence.\nAlthough our courts have not addressed the specific issue raised in this case, other courts have held that a landlord-tenant relationship does exist when a tenant rents a furnished residence for a short period of time. See 5 Thompson on Real Property \u00a7 40.23(a)(2)(i) (David A. Thomas ed., 1994) (hereinafter 5 Thompson on Real Property); Horton v. Marston, 225 N.E.2d 311 (Mass. 1967) (holding that landlord impliedly covenanted that furnished summer cottage was suitable for its intended use); Presson v. Mountain States Properties, Inc., 501 P.2d 17, 19 (Ariz. 1972) (\u201cIn residential short-term lease situations, we believe the duty of due care is owed to a tenant ... to maintain premises free from \u2018unreasonably dangerous\u2019 instrumentalities that could potentially cause injury.\u201d). In recognizing this landlord-tenant relationship, however, these courts have rejected the common law rule absolving the landlord from all liability for unknown dangerous defects in the premises. Id. Instead, these courts hold that the landlord who leases a furnished residence for a short period \u201cimpliedly warrants that the furnished premises will be initially suitable for tenant occupancy.\u201d 5 Thompson on Real Property \u00a7 40.23(a)(2)(f). We agree with this exception to the common law rule. Indeed, it would be unreasonable to hold that a short-term lessor of a furnished vacation home \u201cdoes not impliedly agree that what he is letting is a house suitable for [occupancy] in its condition at the time.\u201d Horton, 225 N.E.2d at 312. \u201cAn important part of what the [tenant] pays for is the opportunity to enjoy [the vacation home] without delay, and without the expense of preparing it for use.\u201d Id.\nIn this case, the plaintiffs rented a furnished vacation home for two weeks. The plaintiffs were injured when the sound-side deck of the vacation home collapsed as they were standing on it. There is evidence in the record that the deck fell because of corroded nails and the absence of lag bolts. This forecast of evidence could support a conclusion that the Ingrams leased a furnished vacation home to William and Janet Conley for a short period of time; that the vacation home was not suitable or habitable for tenant occupancy; and thus that the Ingrams breached their implied warranty of suitability. A breach of this implied warranty of suitability (habitability) is \u201cevidence of negligence.\u201d Brooks v. Francis, 57 N.C. App. 556, 559, 291 S.E.2d 889, 891 (1982). Accordingly, summary judgment for the Ingrams was not appropriate.\nII\nEmerald Isle argues that summary judgment in its favor was nonetheless proper because Emerald Isle \u201cwas simply the rental agent for the Ingrams\u201d and that it therefore had \u201cno duty to the tenants to maintain or repair the premises.\u201d We agree that an agent in the business of renting furnished vacation homes for a short period of time does not necessarily have the duty to maintain and/or repair the premises. Whether the agent has such a duty is a matter of contract or agreement between the agent and the owner of the vacation home. See Cassell v. Collins, 344 N.C. 160, 163-64, 472 S.E.2d 770, 772 (1996). In this case, although the contract between Emerald Isle and the Ingrams is not included in the record, there is evidence raising a genuine issue of fact as to the extent of Emerald Isle\u2019s duty to maintain and repair the Ingrams\u2019 vacation home. Accordingly, summary judgment for Emerald Isle must also be reversed. See Lowe v. Bradford, 305 N.C. 366, 369, 289 S.E.2d 363, 366 (1982) (summary judgment not proper if genuine issue of material fact exists).\nIll\nIn so holding, we reject the argument of the defendants that there is some distinction between their duty to William and Janet Conley and the remainder of the Conley family. The basis for the defendants\u2019 argument is that the vacation home was leased only to William and Janet Conley and thus there was no landlord-tenant relationship with the remainder of the Conley family. It follows, the defendants contend, that the members of the Conley family were licensees and that \u201cabsent some active negligence\u201d on the part of the defendants, their recourse is against William and Janet Conley. We disagree. The tort liability arising from a breach of warranty of suitability or habitability protects not only the tenant(s), but also protects \u201csomeone on the premises with the tenant\u2019s permission.\u201d 5 Thompson on Real Property \u00a7 40.24(b)(9); cf. Hockaday v. Morse, 57 N.C. App. 109, 111-112, 290 S.E.2d 763, 765-66 (registered hotel guests and their guests axe invitees), disc. review denied, 306 N.C. 384, 294 S.E.2d 209 (1982). In this case, the remainder of the Conley family was staying at the Ingrams\u2019 vacation home with the permission of William and Janet Conley, the tenants, and thus are entitled to the protection of the implied warranty of suitability. Indeed, the vacation home was advertised as housing up to fifteen persons, and to restrict the defendants\u2019 tort liability to injuries sustained by William and Janet Conley would be inconsistent with that advertisement.\nReversed and remanded.\nJudges MARTIN, Mark D. and TIMMONS-GOODSON concur.\n. The defendants argue that this Court has previously addressed the exact situation presented in this appeal and cite Sawyer v. Shackleford, 8 N.C. App. 631, 176 S.E.2d 306 (1970), as their authority. We disagree. It is true that the Sawyer case involved a claim by a weekend tenant of a beach cottage who allegedly was injured while walking down negligently designed stairs. The trial court concluded that a landlord-tenant relationship existed but dismissed the case due to the tenant\u2019s contributory negligence. On appeal, this Court affirmed the dismissal on the ground that the finding of contributory negligence was \u201cadequately supported\u201d by the evidence in the case. It does not appear that the issue of the relationship between the tenant and the owner was before this Court. We therefore do not read Sawyer as binding authority on the issues presented in this case.\n. The ultimate test for determining whether the term of the lease is \u201cshort\u201d is whether \u201cthe lease is made for a temporary purpose.\u201d 5 Thompson on Real Property \u00a7 40.23(a) (2)(i). A short term has been described as one for \u201ca few days, or a few weeks or months.\u201d Ingalls v. Hobbs, 31 N.E. 286, 286 (Mass. 1892).\n. The Act requires landlords to provide premises that are \u201cfit and habitable.\u201d N.C.G.S. \u00a7 42-42(a)(2). Although the Act is not applicable in this case, as noted above, the common law requirement that landlords provide premises that are \u201csuitable for occupancy\u201d is tantamount to the requirement that landlords provide premises that are \u201cfit and habitable.\u201d See Black\u2019s Law Dictionary 711 (6th ed. 1990) (defining \u201chabitable\u201d as a residence that is \u201csuitable for habitation\u201d).\n. If the premises were within the coverage of the Act, \u201cany rental management company, rental agency, or any other person having the actual or apparent authority of an agent\u201d would have the same liability as the landlord or owner of the premises. N.C.G.S. \u00a7 42-40(3).", "type": "majority", "author": "GREENE, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Sumrell, Sugg, Carmichael & Ashton, P.A., by Rudolph A. Ashton, III, and Scott C. Hart, for plaintiffs appellants.", "Dunn, Dunn, Stoller & Pittman, LLP, by David A. Stoller and Andrew D. Jones, for defendant appellee Emerald Isle Realty, Inc.", "Mason & Mason, P.A., by L. Patten Mason, for defendants appellees Ingram." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "CHARLES E. CONLEY and wife, ANNA M. CONLEY, CHARLES W. CONLEY and wife, REGINA M. CONLEY, ROBERT D. CONLEY and wife, PATRICIA A. CONLEY, WILLIAM V. CONLEY and wife, JANET L. CONLEY, KATHERINE M. CONLEY, BRIAN Z. TAYLOR, GUARDIAN AD LITEM for STEPHANIE A. CONLEY, JAMES M. AYERS, II, GUARDIAN AD LITEM for MICHAEL W. CONLEY, Plaintiffs v. EMERALD ISLE REALTY, INC., HENRY B. INGRAM, JR., and wife, LUCY G. INGRAM, KATHERINE J. INGRAM, ANNE M. INGRAM, HENRY B. INGRAM, III, ELIZABETH L. INGRAM, Defendants\nNo. COA97-1388\n(Filed 21 July 1998)\n1. Landlord and Tenant\u2014 implied warranty of suitability\u2014 rented beach cottage\nSummary judgment was not appropriately granted for the owners of a beach cottage in a negligence action filed by renters injured when the deck collapsed. The forecast of evidence could support a conclusion that defendants leased a furnished vacation home to plaintiffs for a short period of time; that the vacation home was not suitable or habitable for tenant occupancy; and that the defendants breached their warranty of suitability. The North Carolina Residential Rental Agreements Act does not apply to the facts of this case; however, a landlord who leases a furnished residence for a short period impliedly warrants that the furnished premises will be initially suitable for tenant occupancy.\n2. Landlord and Tenant\u2014 rental agency \u2014 liability for collapsed deck\nSummary judgment for the rental agency of a vacation home was improperly granted in a negligence action arising from a collapsed deck where there was evidence raising a genuine issue of fact as to the extent of the agency\u2019s duty to maintain and repair the vacation home. Whether the agent has a duty to maintain and repair the premises is a matter of contract or agreement between the agent and the owner.\n3. Landlord and Tenant\u2014 vacation home \u2014 collapsed deck\u2014 liability to family members not on lease\nIn an action arising from the collapse of a deck at a beach cottage, family members of the tenants staying at the vacation home with permission from the tenants were entitled to the protection of the implied warranty of suitability.\nAppeal by plaintiffs from order filed 19 August 1997 by Judge Judson D. DeRamus, Jr. in Carteret County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 20 May 1998.\nSumrell, Sugg, Carmichael & Ashton, P.A., by Rudolph A. Ashton, III, and Scott C. Hart, for plaintiffs appellants.\nDunn, Dunn, Stoller & Pittman, LLP, by David A. Stoller and Andrew D. Jones, for defendant appellee Emerald Isle Realty, Inc.\nMason & Mason, P.A., by L. Patten Mason, for defendants appellees Ingram." }, "file_name": "0309-01", "first_page_order": 341, "last_page_order": 346 }