With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". court's grant of summary judgment was erroneous. However, we must carefully assess the trial court's decision to ensure the non-movant was not improperly denied his day in court. Id. at 458 (citations omitted). We resolve all facts and reasonable inferences therefrom in favor of the nonmoving party. Merchants Nat'l Bank v. Simwrell's Sports Bar & Grill, Inc., 741 N.E.2d 383 (Ind.Ct.App.2000). Following the trend of several other states, Indiana has reexamined the rights and duties governing the landlord-tenant relationship. Specifically, Indiana courts have progressively replaced the common-law doctrine of caveat lessee with the adoption of an implied warranty of habitability in the context of residential leases. See Breezewood Mgmt. Co. v. Maltbie, 411 N.E.2d 670 (Ind.Ct.App.1980) (<HOLDING>); Barnes v. Mac Brown and Co., Inc., 264 Ind.

A: holding housing statutes create no rights in tenants for purposes of section 1983
B: recognizing that the burden is on the landlord in a lease dispute to establish that the lease contract had been breached and that such breach entitled the landlord to the possession of the property in question
C: holding that the tenants had a reasonable expectation that their housing would conform to the minimum housing code in effect and when it did not conform the landlord breached an implied warranty of habitability
D: holding that federally funded housing project incurred duty when it erected fence on property bordering creek duty was breached when housing project allowed fence to fall into disrepair
C.