Each week we select a legal term or phrase that’s commonly misunderstood, interesting, or may save you from living under a leaky roof. This week’s word is the latter.

Written by: J. Aaron Landau

Imagine you’re signing a lease on an apartment. A provision in the contract makes an assurance: so long as you keep up the rent payments and maintain certain responsibilities as a renter, you’re entitled to “quiet enjoyment” of the property. What has your landlord just promised? Will he have broken that promise if the downstairs neighbor’s copy of Power Ballads of 1984 gets a little too…powerful? If not, what does it take for a landlord to break that assurance?

A tenant in property (such as an apartment renter) has certain rights related to that property. Among those rights is the widely recognized but commonly misunderstood right to “quiet enjoyment.” Fundamentally, the right to quiet enjoyment is the right of a tenant to use his or her property without interference. That “interference,” however, doesn’t refer to noise or disturbance - it refers to interference with the tenant’s possession of the property. In other words, “quiet” in this sense doesn’t mean “hushed” or “peaceful,” but instead means “free of encroachment.” What the covenant says, then, is that a landlord can’t interfere with a tenant’s right to occupy the property.

There are two ways that interference can happen. The first is actual eviction — for example, a lockout. Since a tenant has the right to exclusive possession of the property during a lease, a lockout would physically deprive the tenant of that right, and would constitute a breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment. (Unless, of course, the landlord has been given the right to evict you…be sure to pay your rent!)

The second way in which a landlord can interfere with a tenant’s right to possess property is a bit more complex: if a landlord’s action falls short of actually excluding a tenant, but is still substantial enough that a tenant would vacate the property, it may be considered constructive eviction. For example, if a landlord neglects to make repairs to a flooded apartment, the apartment may be rendered useless, causing an interference with the tenant’s right to occupy the property.

So does it really take a flood or a lockout to constitute a breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment? As is often the answer in legal definitions, it depends. Just what constitutes a “substantial interference” by the landlord will vary from state to state, though the standard is consistently high. For lesser headaches (such as your neighbor’s affinity for 80’s soft rock) there are several other causes of action under which a landlord might be liable, such as the doctrine of habitability. Ideally, though, such trouble never rises to the level of legal action - often, a simple knock on the door is all the remedy one needs.