3L Roommate v. Lucy the Pupperoni
74 U.Va 3 (2021)
Tonseth, J. delivered the opinion of the Court.
Facts
It all started on a Tuesday evening. The unnamed 3L plaintiff was attempting to locate his bookbag, knowing classes started the following morning. Even though only a notebook and a pencil would be in this bag, the 3L was distraught when he couldn’t find it. Enter Lucy. Lucy is the pupperoni of the 3L’s roommate and a new friend to our plaintiff. As Lucy naturally should, she borrowed the book bag to stuff it with her toys to take on her sojourns across Copeley to get some exercise in. Our 3L plaintiff was not impressed and brought motion to enjoin Lucy from encroaching on his property.[1] As Lucy attempted to represent herself pro se on the guidance of her local counsel, AirBud Esq., this Court will give her an additional benefit of the doubt.[2]
Issue
In his introductory argument, the 3L attempted to argue that by acquiring the rights to his new bedroom through signing a lease, he assumed a “bundle of sticks,” specifically referencing the right to exclude. Lucy moved to exclude this argument, as any discussion of sticks would cause the Court to adjourn for a brief fetch session. Motion was approved. Further, the Plaintiff attempted to argue that Lucy was trespassing on his property and “quiet space,” and that in signing his lease, the Plaintiff was entitled to a covenant of quiet enjoyment and an implied warranty of habitability over his domain.
Discussion
The lowly 3L in this case first argued that Lucy repeatedly committed criminal trespass into his bedroom. This trespass did not include solely her presence, but her toys, odor, and occasional slobber on his pillow from when she took a snoozle.
The gall of this Plaintiff to make these claims rivals that of a gunner thinking their elaborate hypotheticals make sense; there’s no foundation in reality in either. Even though this Court’s knowledge of property is limited, having taken it during the pass/fail semester, the right to exclude is not absolute. See , e.g. Fed Soc v. Libertarians 64 U.Va 17 (2011) (“The requirement to profess an undying love to originalism is not a valid password for entry into public meetings”); Tenured Faculty v. Adjuncts 67 U.Va 4 (2014) (“Just because Regina George said ‘you can’t sit with us,’ doesn’t mean tenured faculty can say the same thing in the faculty dining room”); and Gunners v. Med Students, et. al, 69 U.Va 23 (2016) (holding that “‘technically’ Med and Darden students pay tuition to the University too, and thus can use the far superior law library within reason.”) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s trespass claims are ill-formed, lack any substantive merit, and are dismissed more easily than the unnamed plaintiff trying to chat with a cute girl at Bar Review.
The Plaintiff then turned his claims to his case in chief, arguing that Lucy, her presence, and her smell violated his basic tenant’s rights. Based on the outline I borrowed from VLR’s outline bank,[3] the covenant of quiet enjoyment is implied into every lease whereby the tenants shall have the right of possession, occupancy, and beneficial use of every portion of the leased premises. As there is no claim that possession or occupancy was denied by Lucy’s presence in this case, the Court turns towards whether there is beneficial use of the property, or whether that has been hindered by Lucy. What the Plaintiff forgets in making his claims against Lucy is that the Plaintiff receives additional benefits, beyond those listed in his lease, by merely interacting with Lucy on a daily basis. Perhaps Lucy is guilty of sneaking away with a slice of bacon from the Plaintiff’s breakfast or barking at an errant squirrel in the middle of the Plaintiff attempting to read for PR, but these cons are far outweighed. Lucy also provides a wonderful excuse to go outside, a loyal friend to sit and watch TV with, a chick magnet,[4] and an always available cuddler for those hard days. Additionally, this Court moves to strike ‘quiet’ from this covenant, as borks and sloppy kisses from Lucy are far better ways to enjoy her presence in the lease.
In a last ditch effort, the Plaintiff argued that Lucy’s presence, even though it was known to the Plaintiff before the lease was signed, is a ‘patent defect in the essential facilities of the dwelling.’[5] Although the implied warranty of habitability cannot be waived, the Plaintiff must allow for reasonable time for correction before seeking a remedy. Even if this Court were sympathetic to the claims against Lucy (which is an egregious thought, the presence of a woofer is in no way a defect), the Plaintiff’s claim fails procedurally for the remedy sought. By only moving in three weeks ago and already attempting to enjoin Lucy’s presence, without potentially luring her into another room, setting up a kiddie door in the Plaintiff’s doorway first, or simply learning to love dogs, the Plaintiff has rushed to a conclusion that is not proper. Therefore, the Plaintiff strikes out, just like he does in softball, embarrassingly.
Conclusion
It is clear to this Court that the 3L is wrong in multiple respects. 1) Doggos are to be treasured, not sued. 2) This 3L needs help, as the Court is unsure if they have the proper temperament to pass Character and Fitness. 3) The only thing Lucy could be guilty of is adversely possessing our hearts.
---
pjt5hm@virginia.edu
[1] Plaintiff specifically shouted “Get out of my swamp” when Lucy last tried to enter his bedroom.
[2] All facts are viewed in the light most favorable to Lucy, as she’s a very good girl.
[3] It pays to have smart friends, folks.
[4] Knowing the Plaintiff personally, the Plaintiff would need a few Lucy’s to help him out.
[5] I have no idea what this means, but it appeared in my borrowed outline and got an A.