(a) Except as provided in this section, a landlord may not retaliate by increasing rent
or decreasing services or by bringing or threatening to bring an action for possession
because:
(1) The tenant has complained to a governmental agency charged with responsibility for
enforcement of a building or housing code of a violation applicable to the premises
materially affecting health and safety; or
(2) The tenant has complained to the landlord of a violation under § 34-18-22; or
(3) The tenant has organized or become a member of a tenants’ union or similar organization;
or
(4) The tenant has availed himself or herself of any other lawful rights and remedies.
(b) If the landlord acts in violation of subsection (a), the tenant is entitled to the
remedies provided in § 34-18-34 and has a defense in any retaliatory action against him or her for possession. In
an action by or against the tenant, evidence of a complaint within six (6) months
before the alleged act of retaliation creates a presumption that the landlord’s conduct
was in retaliation. The presumption does not arise if the tenant made the complaint
after notice of a proposed rental increase or diminution of services. “Presumption”
means that the trier of fact must find the existence of the fact presumed unless and
until evidence is introduced which would support a finding of its nonexistence.
(c) Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b), a landlord may bring an action for possession
if:
(1) The violation of the applicable building or housing code was caused primarily by lack
of reasonable care by the tenant, a member of his or her family, or other person on
the premises with his or her consent; or
(2) The tenant is in default in rent; or
(3) Compliance with the applicable building or housing code or other public action such
as eminent domain, requires alteration, remodeling, or demolition which would effectively
deprive the tenant of use of the dwelling unit, and the relocation requirements have
been met by the municipality.
(d) The maintenance of an action under subsection (c) of this section does not release
the landlord from liability under § 34-18-28(b).
Notes of Decisions
Hoffman v. Davenport-Metcalf, 851 A.2d 1083 (R.I. 2004).
· cites it 4× “Count 1 of plaintiffs' complaint alleges that "defendants have taken actions against plaintiffs in retaliation for the plaintiffs' exercise of their lawful rights seeking to enforce the terms and conditions of their lease and their occupancy, in violation of § 34-18-46." Not…”
State Water Resources Bd. v. Howard, 729 A.2d 712 (R.I. 1999).
“In addition to their defense that the 1995 leases were unlawful, the tenants asserted that the evictions constituted unlawful retaliation in violation of § 34-18-46. The District Court judge consolidated the actions and ruled in favor of the tenants.”
Russo v. Fleetwood, 713 A.2d 775 (R.I. 1998).
“Specifically, § 34-18-44 prohibits a landlord from recovering or taking possession of a dwelling unit through self-help recovery whereas § 34-18-46 prohibits a landlord from retaliating against a tenant for the tenant’s decision to exercise his or her rights.”
Watson v. Quick, 105 A.3d 98 (R.I. 2015).
· cites it 2× “Section 34-18-46(a)(1) prohibits a landlord from bringing or threatening to bring an action for possession because, inter alia, "[t]he tenant has complained to a governmental agency charged with responsibility for enforcement of a building or housing code of a violation…”
Monteiro v. Bjartmarz, 723 A.2d 786 (R.I. 1998).
“The defendants assert that the trial justice misinterpreted the applicability of § 34-18-46, which prohibits retaliatory conduct, in ruling that because the eviction was commenced after the expiration of the lease, it was not retaliatory.”
— R.I. Gen. Laws § 34-18-46(a)(1) — 1 case
Watson v. Quick, 105 A.3d 98 (R.I. 2015).
“Section 34-18-46(a)(1) prohibits a landlord from bringing or threatening to bring an action for possession because, inter alia, "[t]he tenant has complained to a governmental agency charged with responsibility for enforcement of a building or housing code of a violation…”
— R.I. Gen. Laws § 34-18-46(b) — 1 case
Hoffman v. Davenport-Metcalf, 851 A.2d 1083 (R.I. 2004).
“Count 1 of plaintiffs' complaint alleges that "defendants have taken actions against plaintiffs in retaliation for the plaintiffs' exercise of their lawful rights seeking to enforce the terms and conditions of their lease and their occupancy, in violation of § 34-18-46." Not…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.