Property Code § 92.164 – Tenant Remedies for Landlord’s Failure to Install Security Devices
Table of Contents
Code Details
PROPERTY CODE
TITLE 8. LANDLORD AND TENANT
CHAPTER 92. RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES
Exact Statute Text
Click to view the complete statute text
TENANT REMEDIES FOR LANDLORD’S FAILURE TO INSTALL OR REKEY CERTAIN SECURITY DEVICES. (a) If a landlord does not comply with Section 92.153 or 92.156(a) regarding installation or rekeying of a security device, the tenant may:
(1) install or rekey the security device as required by this subchapter and deduct the reasonable cost of material, labor, taxes, and extra keys from the tenant’s next rent payment, in accordance with Section 92.166;
(2) serve a written request for compliance on the landlord, and, except as provided by Subsections (b) and (c), if the landlord does not comply on or before the third day after the date the notice is received, unilaterally terminate the lease without court proceedings;
(3) file suit against the landlord without serving a request for compliance and obtain a judgment for:
(A) a court order directing the landlord to comply, if the tenant is in possession of the dwelling;
(B) the tenant’s actual damages;
(C) court costs; and
(D) attorney’s fees except in suits for recovery of property damages, personal injuries, or wrongful death; and
(4) serve a written request for compliance on the landlord, and, except as provided by Subsections (b) and (c), if the landlord does not comply on or before the third day after the date the notice is received, file suit against the landlord and obtain a judgment for:
(A) a court order directing the landlord to comply and bring all dwellings owned by the landlord into compliance, if the tenant serving the written request is in possession of the dwelling;
(B) the tenant’s actual damages;
(C) punitive damages if the tenant suffers actual damages;
(D) a civil penalty of one month’s rent plus $500;
(E) court costs; and
(F) attorney’s fees except in suits for recovery of property damages, personal injuries, or wrongful death.
(b) A tenant may not unilaterally terminate the lease under Subsection (a)(2) or file suit against the landlord to obtain a judgment under Subsection (a)(4) unless the landlord does not comply on or before the seventh day after the date the written request for compliance is received if the lease includes language underlined or in boldface print that in substance provides the tenant with notice that:
(1) the landlord at the landlord’s expense is required to equip the dwelling, when the tenant takes possession, with the security devices described by Sections 92.153(a)(1)-(4) and (6);
(2) the landlord is not required to install a doorknob lock or keyed dead bolt at the landlord’s expense if the exterior doors meet the requirements of Section 92.153(f);
(3) the landlord is not required to install a keyless bolting device at the landlord’s expense on an exterior door if the landlord is expressly required or permitted to periodically check on the well-being or health of the tenant as provided by Section 92.153(e)(3); and
(4) the tenant has the right to install or rekey a security device required by this subchapter and deduct the reasonable cost from the tenant’s next rent payment, as provided by Subsection (a)(1).
(c) Regardless of whether the lease contains language complying with the requirements of Subsection (b), the additional time for landlord compliance provided by Subsection (b) does not apply if at the time the tenant served the written request for compliance on the landlord the tenant informed the landlord that an unauthorized entry occurred or was attempted in the tenant’s dwelling, an unauthorized entry occurred or was attempted in another unit in the multiunit complex in which the tenant’s dwelling is located during the two months preceding the date of the request, or a crime of personal violence occurred in the multiunit complex in which the tenant’s dwelling is located during the two months preceding the date of the request, unless despite the diligence of the landlord:
(1) the landlord did not know of the tenant’s request, without the fault of the landlord;
(2) materials, labor, or utilities were unavailable; or
(3) a delay was caused by circumstances beyond the landlord’s control, including the illness or death of the landlord or a member of the landlord’s immediate family.
Property Code § 92.164 Summary
This Texas statute outlines the various actions a tenant can take if their landlord fails to install or rekey essential security devices as required by law (specifically referring to Property Code §§ 92.153 and 92.156(a)). Tenants have several remedies, including the ability to take matters into their own hands by installing or rekeying the device and deducting the reasonable costs from their next rent payment, following specific procedures.
Alternatively, a tenant can send a written request to the landlord for compliance. If the landlord does not respond within three days, the tenant may unilaterally end the lease or file a lawsuit. A lawsuit can seek a court order for compliance, actual financial losses, court expenses, and attorney’s fees. If the tenant gives written notice and the landlord still fails to act within the specified timeframe, the tenant can sue for even more, including an order for the landlord to bring all their properties into compliance, actual damages, punitive damages if there are actual damages, a civil penalty of one month’s rent plus $500, court costs, and attorney’s fees.
Important exceptions modify the landlord’s response time: The three-day window extends to seven days if the lease prominently features specific language notifying the tenant about their security device rights and the landlord’s responsibilities. However, this seven-day extension is voided, reverting to the original three days, if the tenant informs the landlord of a recent unauthorized entry attempt or successful entry into their unit or another unit in the complex, or a crime of personal violence in the complex within the preceding two months. This expedited timeframe does not apply if the landlord’s delay was due to circumstances beyond their control, such as a lack of knowledge, unavailable materials, or other unavoidable situations.
Purpose of Property Code § 92.164
The legislative intent behind this section of the Property Code is to provide robust protections for residential tenants in Texas by ensuring their safety and security within their rented homes. It addresses the critical issue of landlord negligence or failure to uphold their statutory duty to provide essential security devices like deadbolts, peepholes, and window latches, or to rekey locks when required. The statute exists to empower tenants with clear, actionable legal options beyond simply waiting for landlord compliance. By outlining specific remedies, including self-help, lease termination, and various forms of legal recourse—some carrying significant penalties for landlords—it incentivizes landlords to comply with security device requirements promptly. This aims to prevent insecure housing conditions that could lead to property crimes or personal harm, thereby fostering safer living environments for Texas residents. It puts the onus on landlords to prioritize tenant security and offers tenants a path to enforce these vital protections.
Real-World Example of Property Code § 92.164
Imagine Sarah, a tenant living in a multi-unit apartment complex in Austin, Texas. She moved into her apartment three weeks ago and immediately noticed that her front door only had a doorknob lock; the keyed deadbolt required by Texas Property Code § 92.153 was missing. She also realized the sliding glass door leading to her patio lacked the required security bar.
Sarah promptly sent a written request to her landlord, Mr. Henderson, detailing the missing security devices and citing Property Code § 92.153. She requested their installation within the legally mandated timeframe. Mr. Henderson, however, is notoriously slow to respond to maintenance requests.
Three days pass, and Sarah receives no communication from Mr. Henderson, nor are the devices installed. Frustrated but aware of her rights, Sarah has several options under Property Code § 92.164:
1. Self-Help and Deduction: Sarah could go to the hardware store, purchase a compliant keyed deadbolt and a security bar, hire a handyman to install them (keeping all receipts), and then deduct the total reasonable cost from her next month’s rent payment, following the procedures outlined in § 92.166.
2. Unilateral Lease Termination: Given that Mr. Henderson did not comply within three days and assuming her lease doesn’t contain the specific bold/underlined language extending the deadline to seven days, Sarah could serve a notice of unilateral lease termination. She would then be able to move out without further obligation, without needing to go to court.
3. File Suit for Compliance and Damages (without prior notice for specific penalties): Sarah could immediately file a lawsuit against Mr. Henderson. She could ask the court for an order directing him to install the security devices, for her actual damages (perhaps for the cost of temporary security measures she took), court costs, and her attorney’s fees (if applicable).
4. File Suit for Enhanced Damages (after notice): If Sarah had given the written request and waited the three days (or seven, if applicable), she could file a lawsuit seeking a more substantial judgment. She could ask the court to order Mr. Henderson not only to install the devices in her unit but also to bring all other units he owns into compliance. Furthermore, she could seek her actual damages, punitive damages (if she can prove actual damages and gross negligence or willful disregard), a civil penalty of one month’s rent plus $500, court costs, and her attorney’s fees.
If, for instance, Sarah had informed Mr. Henderson that there was an attempted break-in at a neighboring apartment unit in the complex just last week, the landlord’s compliance period would remain three days, even if her lease contained the language that normally extends it to seven days, as per Subsection (c). This scenario illustrates how the statute empowers tenants with various means to ensure their landlord fulfills vital safety obligations.
Related Statutes
- Property Code § 92.153 – Security Devices Required Without Necessity of Tenant Request: This statute is directly referenced and forms the basis for a landlord’s primary obligation regarding security devices. It specifies the types of security devices (e.g., doorknob locks, keyed deadbolts, keyless bolting devices, window latches, sliding door pin locks) that a landlord must install at the landlord’s expense in a dwelling. Section 92.164 details the remedies if a landlord fails to meet these initial installation requirements.
- Property Code § 92.156(a) – Rekeying or Change of Security Devices; Removal or Addition of Devices: Also directly referenced in § 92.164, this subsection requires a landlord to rekey security devices on an exterior door within seven days after a new tenant moves in or upon a tenant’s request under certain conditions. Section 92.164 provides the remedies if a landlord fails to rekey as required.
- Property Code § 92.166 – Tenant’s Deduction of Repair Costs: This statute provides the detailed procedure for a tenant to install or repair a security device and deduct the reasonable cost from their rent, which is the self-help remedy outlined in § 92.164(a)(1). It specifies requirements for notice, itemized statements, and the limitations on the deduction.
- Property Code § 92.056 – Landlord’s Duty to Repair or Remedy: This broader statute establishes a landlord’s general duty to make repairs and outlines tenant remedies for landlord’s failure to repair conditions that materially affect the physical health or safety of an ordinary tenant. While § 92.164 specifically addresses security devices, § 92.056 covers other types of necessary repairs and safety issues in a dwelling.
- Property Code § 92.0561 – Tenant’s Judicial Remedies: This section details the judicial remedies available to a tenant when a landlord fails to repair under § 92.056, including termination, actual damages, civil penalties, and attorney’s fees. It serves as a general counterpart to the more specific remedies provided for security devices in § 92.164.
Case Law Interpreting Property Code § 92.164
Judicial interpretations often clarify the application and scope of the remedies provided in Property Code § 92.164. Courts consider the specific circumstances of a landlord’s non-compliance, the tenant’s actions, and the damages claimed.
In the case of *Martinez v. Ball, 2012 WL 602324 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Feb. 23, 2012, no pet.)*, the court discussed a tenant’s options, including the ability to sue for damages, when a landlord failed to rekey security devices as required by the Property Code. The court’s analysis highlighted the importance of a landlord’s statutory duty to provide secure premises and the legal avenues available to tenants when those duties are neglected. While this case primarily dealt with the landlord’s failure to rekey, the principles of tenant remedies under Chapter 92, and specifically § 92.164, are central to such disputes, demonstrating how courts enforce these provisions to protect residential occupants.
Why Property Code § 92.164 Matters in Personal Injury Litigation
Property Code § 92.164 is exceptionally relevant in Texas personal injury litigation, particularly in cases involving premises liability where a tenant suffers harm due to inadequate security. When a landlord fails to install or rekey essential security devices as mandated by Texas law, they are potentially in violation of a statutory duty. This violation can form a powerful basis for a plaintiff’s personal injury claim.
For injured tenants, this statute can:
- Establish Negligence Per Se: If a landlord’s failure to comply with §§ 92.153 or 92.156(a) directly leads to an unauthorized entry and subsequent injury (e.g., an assault during a break-in because a required deadbolt was missing), it may allow a plaintiff to argue negligence *per se*. This means the landlord’s statutory violation, by itself, establishes a breach of duty, simplifying the proof of negligence.
- Demonstrate Breach of Duty: Even without negligence *per se*, the statute clearly defines a landlord’s duty regarding security. A failure to meet this duty provides concrete evidence of a breach of care that directly contributed to the unsafe conditions leading to injury.
- Expand Damages: Beyond typical medical expenses and pain and suffering, § 92.164 allows for the recovery of “actual damages,” “punitive damages if the tenant suffers actual damages,” and a “civil penalty of one month’s rent plus $500” if a written request for compliance was served and ignored. These additional categories of damages can significantly increase the compensation available to an injured tenant, making litigation more viable.
- Recover Attorney’s Fees: The ability to recover attorney’s fees (except in suits for recovery of personal injuries) under subsections (a)(3)(D) and (a)(4)(F) is crucial. While typically personal injury claims include their own provisions for attorney’s fees, the inclusion here ensures that tenants can pursue statutory violations and related damages without bearing the full burden of legal costs, even if the primary goal is not solely personal injury recovery.
For legal professionals, understanding § 92.164 is key to building strong plaintiff cases and formulating defense strategies. Plaintiffs’ attorneys will emphasize the clear statutory violation and its direct link to the tenant’s injury. Defense attorneys might focus on whether the landlord *actually* violated the specific sections, the adequacy of notice given by the tenant, whether the exceptions in subsections (b) or (c) apply, or if the lack of a security device was truly the proximate cause of the injury rather than intervening criminal acts. This statute provides a clear legal framework that shapes arguments for both sides in premises liability actions involving residential security.