In March, news broke of a class action lawsuit filed against Huntsville’s Eclipse apartment complex by several tenants.

The lawsuit targets the developers and owners of the building, RCP Companies and Willow Bridge Inc., and alleges issues with false fire alarms and flooding at the apartment complex located at 401 Williams Avenue SW.

The companies are accused of negligence, recklessness, and breach of contract.

Over the past month, HBJ has spoken with three different tenants, none of whom are participating in the lawsuit, to obtain correspondence and gather more details about the situation at the controversial residence.

According to the tenants, they all share similar experiences.

Elizabeth Keller moved into her apartment in June 2023, while Frances Morris’s tenure began in August 2023. The first instance of the fire alarm going off occurred in October and became a regular occurrence starting in January 2024.

“It always seemed to be in the middle of the night, around one o’clock, three o’clock, or four o’clock in the morning,” Keller explained. “You would be woken up by the fire alarms. Some days it would go off multiple times, up to three or four times a day. Then maybe the next day it would go off once and then not for a week or two. Then it would start again, going off like three or four days in a week. It was very random and sporadic but almost always past midnight.”

Both Keller and Morris expressed respect for the local maintenance workers at the property. Their complaints are with ownership and management, who do not have a representative on-site.

The timing was particularly bad, with no way to know for sure whether the alarms were legitimate. This resulted in tenants evacuating into the winter cold with their families and pets, and being unable to fall back asleep when they returned inside.

The problems were not just isolated to inconvenient alarms. The lawsuit also mentions how many tenants had their apartments flooded in January due to frozen pipes bursting.

The lawsuit details one such experience for the plaintiff Paul Shaia.

“In January, Shaia, his wife, and their three children aged five, three, and a newborn, were awakened at approximately 4:00 a.m. to find their apartment flooded with ankle-deep water. No alarms were going off. Mr. Shaia got up in the middle of the night, stepped into ankle-deep water, and immediately called the Eclipse maintenance line. According to the Eclipse maintenance crew, the flooding was caused by the bursting of pipes in the adjacent vacant unit, which was due to the faucets not being left dripping as a precaution against the freezing temperatures.

“This oversight by Defendants resulted in significant damage, destroying the Shaia family’s possessions and furniture. Despite their immediate need for a safe living environment, it took four weeks for a restoration company to remove all the water from their unit. In the interim, Eclipse management relocated the Shaia family to a ‘model unit,’ which was typically used for touring prospective residents before they were able to move into a new house. As a result of this incident, the Shaia family incurred thousands of dollars in property damage and were subjected to considerable distress and inconvenience,” the lawsuit states.

In an email sent to all tenants on February 1st, Eclipse Management acknowledged the issues.

“We will be issuing everyone a $150 credit to your accounts,” the email read. “We know the situation is not ideal, but we are doing the best we can to resolve this.” The apartment complex even offered two free months of rent for tenants to renew their leases.

For Frances Morris, this wasn’t enough.

She wanted out of her apartment and felt it was within her right to do so amidst the chaos. In late February, she contacted management via email and requested to break her lease and move without penalty. Despite offering free months of rent and crediting accounts, management insisted that any broken lease must be paid in full.

This point of contention is also part of the lawsuit. According to federal laws regarding tenants and their right to “quiet enjoyment,” the tenants might have been within their rights to move without penalty.

The covenant of quiet enjoyment ensures that tenants can reside in a property peacefully, without unnecessary disturbance from others. This right to quiet enjoyment exists in transactions of real estate. It is important to note that courts recognize this covenant as a part of any tenancy in a landlord-tenant relationship. Additionally, this covenant cannot be waived for residential rental agreements. A tenant has a right to quiet enjoyment regardless of whether the lease specifies this or not.

Azibo, a website dedicated to providing resources and information regarding renting property, describes “Peace and quiet” as a key aspect.

“Tenants have the right to live in a peaceful and quiet environment without unreasonable disturbances from their landlord or other tenants. This includes limiting excessive noise and addressing any behavior that disrupts a tenant’s ability to use and enjoy their home,” states the webstie.

In an interview with HBJ, Eric Artrip of Mastando & Artrip, the firm representing the Eclipse plaintiffs, explained his reasoning for taking the case.

“The problems were pervasive, persistent, and uniform. Also, because it keeps happening over and over again. It doesn’t seem like the developer, absent a court order or some kind of consent decree, is going to make any changes to stop it. And finally, because the fire alarms are all over the apartments, that means pretty much every single person in the building is going to be affected. So because of the persistent, pervasive, and uniform nature of the harm, we felt like class treatment made the most sense,” said Artrip.