## Facts

- Residential tenants rented apartments from the landlord in Kansas City, Missouri.
- Tenants alleged serious, ongoing violations of the Kansas City Property Maintenance Code and Fire Prevention Code that rendered the premises unsafe and unsanitary.
- Tenants sought (among other relief) enforcement of lease covenants, appointment of a receiver to collect rent and manage repairs, and damages including claims styled under the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (MMPA).
- A receiver was initially appointed but was unable to obtain financing for repairs; the receiver’s role was reduced to collecting rent and paying utilities while the landlord was ordered to make repairs.
- After some repairs, a certificate of occupancy issued; within months, additional violations were alleged, and most tenants vacated.
- Tenants filed a first amended petition asserting: (1) negligence per se based on code violations, (2) breach of an implied warranty of habitability, and (3) two counts seeking damages and attorney’s fees under the MMPA.
- The trial court dismissed the entire amended petition for failure to state a claim.

## Issues

1. Whether Missouri recognizes a common-law cause of action for breach of an implied warranty of habitability in residential leases.
2. Whether the tenants’ allegations of serious code violations and uninhabitable conditions were sufficient to state a habitability claim at the pleading stage.
3. Whether ordinary residential landlord-tenant transactions fall within the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, permitting damages and attorney’s fees under § 407.025.1.
4. How municipal housing and fire code violations relate to civil liability theories asserted by tenants.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Missouri affirmed in part and reversed in part the dismissal.
- The court recognized a common-law implied warranty of habitability in residential leases in Missouri.
- The court held the amended petition, though poorly organized and overly detailed, adequately stated a claim for breach of the implied warranty of habitability.
- The court held the MMPA does not apply to ordinary residential lease disputes and affirmed dismissal of the MMPA counts.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with recognition of the tenants’ habitability claim.

## Legal Principles

- Missouri common law implies a warranty of habitability in residential leases, requiring landlords to provide and maintain premises fit for human habitation.
- A tenant may pursue an affirmative damages action for breach of the implied warranty when dangerous or unsanitary conditions materially affecting life, health, or safety persist after reasonable notice and an opportunity to repair.
- Municipal housing and fire code standards inform the content of the habitability obligation; code violations are probative of uninhabitable conditions but are not treated as automatic civil liability in all instances.
- Statutory enforcement mechanisms addressing substandard housing do not, by themselves, displace the common-law habitability cause of action.
- Ordinary residential rental transactions are outside the scope of § 407.025.1 of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act.

## Conclusion

The court adopted an implied warranty of habitability for Missouri residential leases, allowing tenants to pursue common-law relief for materially unsafe or unsanitary conditions supported by code violations, while rejecting attempts to reframe ordinary landlord-tenant habitability disputes as MMPA consumer-fraud claims.


Detling v. Edelbrock, 671 S.W.2d 265 (Mo. 1984)