What case law set the precedent in Texas to absolve landlords of being responsible for the behavior of their tenants?

Question

So I learned the hard way that in Texas its best to rent from a landlord offering a single family home and not from an apartment complex because in Texas quiet enjoyment is only recognized between the landlord and the tenant, not between the landlord and tenant and those whom the landlord brings on as tenants without some type of proper vetting such ensuring they make three times the rent. So I am looking for the case law that lead to the inability for judges in Texas to understand the following analogy.

If I rent a room in a hotel and I have rented hotels to go on vacations and what not. If hotel management also rented a room to someone beside me or above me and they brought a cat and are allowing the cat to urinate in the hallways and I can smell that and I report that. The hotel will apologize, give me a new room and probably throw in something complimentary and then deal with the guest with the urinating cat.

You see the above there, thats called good customer service and yet if a tenant does the same thing and it stinks to high heaven, its unsanitary as well, the landlord of the apartment complex in Texas is under no obligation to do anything about it and I have experienced that they indeed do not do anything about it.

So if there is a precedent that absolved landlords of apartment complexes from being held responsible for the type of "guest" if you will, that they allow to rent from them, what case is that?

If there is no precedent, then I have to ask, does Texas court see tenants as synonymous with "deadbeat", "debt-serf", "asset", "non-person"? Or put another way, why does my quiet enjoyment not extent to the landlord AND the genteel that they decide or not decide to take on as tenants or "guests" to use the hotel analogy.

I am pretty certain my analogy makes sense. I am a paying customer, a tenant, the law says quiet enjoyment is implicit in lease agreements (although it seems weak and its preferable to have something explicit in the lease such as in the case of Fidelity Mutual v. Kowalsky) and it should extend to not just what the landlord does or does not do to me, but the people they choose to serve or employ. I am pretty certain I have never stayed at a Hampton Inn where they would tell me, well thats between you and the other guest, you guys hash it out.

And if at all possible how much does the fact that apartment complexes throughout Texas are owned by hedge funds and real estate holding companies weigh in to that disconnect in the above analogy?

Answer 1

If I rent a room in a hotel and I have rented hotels to go on vacations and what not. If hotel management also rented a room to someone beside me or above me and they brought a cat and are allowing the cat to urinate in the hallways and I can smell that and I report that. The hotel will apologize, give me a new room and probably throw in something complimentary and then deal with the guest with the urinating cat.

The relationship between a boarder and a hotel is not the same as that of a landlord and tenant. This is a major distinction, the hotel is acting as a service provider, not a landlord and enjoys some careful distinctions, like being able to remove a boarder for non-payment without going through an eviction process...

You see the above there, thats called good customer service and yet if a tenant does the same thing and it stinks to high heaven, its unsanitary as well, the landlord of the apartment complex in Texas is under no obligation to do anything about it and I have experienced that they indeed do not do anything about it.

Yes, this is "customer service" on the hotel's part. They are trying to win your continued business because you can walk away and not pay for future visits. They, however, are not legally obligated to do any of that for you. They can just say "sorry" and not do anything and you'll be obligated to the night's you've stayed (including any nights you leave after the check-out time due to a dispute). They don't have to give you anything for your trouble.

So if there is a precedent that absolved landlords of apartment complexes from being held responsible for the type of "guest" if you will, that they allow to rent from them, what case is that?

Again, a tenant is not a "guest", in many legal senses of the term. The tenant has rights and you may be able to move to leave your apartment early and sever the relationship if your requests are not met and they rob you of "peaceful enjoyment" of your property, but the landlord is not obligated to rectify the situation outside the terms of your (and their) lease. They don't owe you anything other than what they are obligated to provide in writing (and the law). If you find your peaceful enjoyment is hindered, start documenting and requesting resolution. They won't do anything for you, but when you move and break your lease, you can defend yourself in small claims.

And if at all possible how much does the fact that apartment complexes throughout Texas are owned by hedge funds and real estate holding companies weigh in to that disconnect in the above analogy?

None, a "landlord" is not defined to be a private individual or a corporation. The only time that I know something like this has come into effect is for military housing off-base where leases are negotiated en-mass, there was a case of price fixing and failure to resolve problems. I forget the exact case but the company lost billions in contracts... A "landlord" is held to the same standards be it a "mom and pop", or a multinational billion-dollar corporation.

And, as you are very much finding out, Texas is a very "landlord friendly" state that gives a lot of power to landlords. For example, in Texas, a landlord can change your locks at any time as long as they leave instructions on where to find/obtain the replacement keys. They can also enter the property at any time if they suspect a situation which may be damaging the property.

Answer 2

You do have a right to peaceful enjoyment of your property.

Your landlord may not interfere with this.

However if he rents out an adjacent property and the tenant of that property interferes with your right, then the person violating your right isn't the landlord, but the new tenant.

If the actions of your neighbors amount to legal nuisance (e.g. Loud noises deep into the night, terrible smells, etc.) then you may make a claim against that individual.

Your landlord is under no obligation to prevent new tenants from interfering with your enjoyment of your property. That responsibility lies with those tenants themselves.