Alaska Supreme Court

Tuyen Dinh v. Matthew Raines and Melissa Clayton

February 23, 2024544 P.3d 1156

Summary

The Alaska Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s findings that the landlord violated the warranty of habitability and willfully diminished essential services, but reversed the award of damages for failure to deliver possession, exemplary damages, and moving‑expense damages, and remanded for a recalculated award consistent with the record. The Court also clarified that internet and cable are not “essential services” under AS 34.03.210 and that tenants must give timely written notice to recover under AS 34.03.170.

Holding

  • Did Dinh violate the warranty of habitability under AS 34.03.100?. Yes. The landlord failed to maintain the premises in a fit and habitable condition, violating AS 34.03.100.
  • Did Dinh willfully diminish essential services under AS 34.03.210?. Yes, but only for heating fuel, electricity, and hot water; internet and cable are not essential services.
  • Are tenants entitled to damages for failure to deliver possession under AS 34.03.170?. No. The tenants failed to give timely written notice of the habitability defects, so they cannot recover under AS 34.03.170.
  • Were the exemplary‑damage and double‑recovery awards proper?. No. The $10,000 exemplary‑damage award and the inclusion of the $8,800 diminution‑in‑value amount in the total URLTA damages constitute impermissible double recovery and lack a factual basis.
  • Was the award of moving‑expense damages proper?. No. The moving expenses were incurred as a result of a valid court‑ordered eviction and therefore cannot be recovered from the landlord.

Docket S18262

Cited authorities

  • Neb. Rev. Stat. § 76-1418
  • Neb. Rev. Stat. § 76-1426

Cited by

Read full opinionPDF