To prevail on a repair-and-deduct claim, the tenant must be able to prove that the repairs made were necessary and that the price of the repairs was reasonable. The “necessity of the repairs” should be established through the testimony of a qualified person.1 Purely cosmetic repairs are not covered by Article 2694.2
The actual price of the repairs should be provable by testimony of payment, corroborated by introduction into evidence of the bills paid, and identification of them as expenses incurred because of the landlord’s default.3 The reasonableness of the price should be proved through the testimony of a person qualified and knowledgeable in the assessment of the value of repairs.4
If a repair person or trade contractor cannot be obtained for the trial, you should attempt to introduce other competent testimony on the nature of the defects, the amount of time spent on the repairs, and the costs of the labor and materials. You can attempt to introduce any estimates for the repair work. Although these estimates are ordinarily inadmissible as hearsay,5 you could argue that the estimates are not being admitted for the truth of the matter asserted, but rather to show that the tenant obtained multiple estimates in order to satisfy the reasonableness requirement.
Finally, note that a tenant may be able to make a rent deduction for the value of the tenant’s own labor, if properly proved.6
- 1See, e.g., Scott v. Davis, 56 So. 2d 187 (Orl. App. 1952) (holding that production of receipted bill for automobile repairs, allegedly necessitated as the result of a collision, is not alone sufficient proof and that there must be testimony); Ermis v. Gov’t Emps. Ins. Co, 305 So. 2d 620 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1975) (holding that damage claim based on bill for medical expenses from a clinic was not proven where no doctor from the clinic testified).
- 2Pylate v. Inabnet, 458 So. 2d 1378, 1389 (La. App. 2 Cir. 1984).
- 3See, e.g., Dikert v. Ruiz, 231 So. 2d 633 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1970); Trinity Universal Ins. Co. v. Normand, 220 So. 2d 583, 586 (La. App. 3 Cir. 1969); see also Freeman v. G.T.S. Corp., 363 So. 2d 1247, 1251 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1978). But see Ducote v. Allstate Ins. Co., 242 So. 2d 103, 107 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1970) (holding that that a party’s testimony alone is insufficient to establish a claim for damages); Vezinat v. Marix, 217 So. 2d 416, 421 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1968) (same).
- 4See, e.g., Ducote, 242 So. 2d at 106; Vezinat, 217 So. 2d 416.
- 5Thompson v. Simmons, 499 So. 2d 517 (La. App. 2 Cir. 1986); Ordonez v. Md. Cas. Co., 312 So. 2d 875 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1975); Dikert, 231 So. 2d 633.
- 6Kopcso v. Alello, 32 So. 2d 99, 101 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1947) (holding that plaintiff who repaired cars professionally was entitled to his regular, reasonable charge for repairing his own vehicle). But see Lambert v. Allstate Ins. Co., 195 So. 2d 698, 702 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1967) (refusing to award plaintiffs damages for the cost of security services where they provided the service themselves).