Implied Warranty of Habitability

Board of Dir of Bloomfield Club Recreation Assn v Hoffman Group, Inc, 186 Ill 2d 419, 712 NE2d 330, 238 Ill Dec 608 (Ill 1999).

Facts: Defendants were The Hoffman Group, Inc. (Hoffman) and Ahmanson Developments, Inc. (Ahmanson), developers and sellers of units in Bloomfield Club. Bloomfield Club is a residential development comprised of homes and certain common amenities, such as a common clubhouse. Plaintiff is the association of homeowners of the Bloomfield Club. The Association's complaint alleged that when the defendants sold the common clubhouse to the Association, they impliedly warranted its suitability for its intended uses, and violated that implied warranty by developing and selling the clubhouse with faulty design, workmanship, and materials. Ahmanson and Hoffman separately moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that implied warranty of habitability applies only to residences, not to unoccupied areas such as the clubhouse. The Association argued that the implied warranty of habitability has been extended to common areas. The circuit court granted the motion to dismiss with prejudice. The Association subsequently filed a motion to reconsider and proposed an amended complaint. The proposed complaint alleged that the members purchased their properties with the expectation that they could use the clubhouse, that the clubhouse facilities could have been found in a home, and that they used them as if they were in their homes. The circuit court denied leave to file the amended complaint and the motion to reconsider, and the appellate court affirmed.

Holding: Affirmed. The implied warranty of habitability is narrowly tailored, protecting only "residential property dwellers from latent defects that interfere with the habitability of their residences." The implied warranty is applicable only where latent defects interfere with reasonable expectations that the unit will be suitable for habitation. Therefore, since the clubhouse is not a residence, the implied warranty of habitability cannot apply. Although earlier case law expanded the scope of the implied warranty, there is no basis for the position that it was expanded to encompass nonresidential units. While there may be a basis for the position that the implied warranty applies to a defect in a common area that is connected to the habitability of a living unit, such a connection does not exist here. Further, it makes no difference that the homeowners are required to contribute to the costs of the clubhouse, and that they may use the facilities as if they were part of their living unit. It is still the case that the defects in no way interfere with the habitability of the residences.

© ATG atgc0500vol24

 

Print this page