## Facts

- A landlord leased a single-family house to a tenant for $300 per month plus a $300 security deposit under a written lease.
- Shortly after move-in, the roof leaked during heavy rain; ceiling material fell, and water intrusion continued in multiple rooms.
- The tenant claimed she promptly and repeatedly notified the landlord and complained about the leaks and resulting damage when paying rent.
- Water intrusion caused mold and damage to personal property, including carpets and a mattress.
- The landlord contended notice came much later and attempted temporary roof treatment; the tenant reported no meaningful improvement.
- The landlord replaced the roof with new shingles but did not repair interior water damage.
- During roof work, the landlord parked a dump truck in front of the house; the tenant’s child may have sprayed water into the open gas tank, leading to a dispute over repair costs.

## Issues

1. Whether the landlord breached the implied warranty of habitability by failing, after notice, to timely repair serious roof leaks and resulting conditions affecting habitability.
2. Whether the landlord’s conduct in renting and managing the premises constituted an unfair or deceptive trade practice supporting treble damages under the UDTPA.
3. Whether the trial court’s monetary awards (including treble damages and attorney’s fees) were supported by evidence and legally adequate findings.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded.
- The court upheld the determination that persistent, serious leaks and resulting conditions, after notice and without timely effective repair, supported breach of the implied warranty of habitability and rent abatement-type relief.
- The court accepted that sufficiently egregious habitability-related misconduct by a landlord can constitute an unfair or deceptive trade practice, but required proper linkage between actual damages, trebling, and supporting findings.
- The court left undisturbed the trial court’s modest award to the landlord on the truck-damage claim.
- The court vacated and remanded portions of the damages and fee components for recalculation and/or additional findings.

## Legal Principles

- Residential landlords must maintain leased premises in a fit and habitable condition and must make necessary repairs within a reasonable time after notice of defects that materially affect habitability.
- A tenant may seek retroactive rent relief and consequential damages when a landlord’s failure to repair serious defects after notice substantially impairs use of the premises and causes related losses.
- Landlord conduct connected to leasing and managing residential property may fall within the UDTPA; when a UDTPA violation is proven, the court must treble actual damages.
- Attorney’s fees in UDTPA actions require satisfaction of statutory prerequisites and findings supporting the reasonableness of the fee award.

## Conclusion

The court sustained core liability findings that prolonged, unremedied roof leaks and resulting conditions after notice breached the implied warranty of habitability and could also support UDTPA liability, but it vacated and remanded parts of the damages and attorney’s-fee awards for proper calculation and supporting findings.


Pierce v. Reichard, 593 S.E.2d 787 (N.C. Ct. App. 2004)