Accordingly, the courts have concluded that the failure to make roof repairs, the failure to replace a furnace to prevent damage from freezing, the failure to paint the exterior of a structure, and the failure to replace or maintain gutters amounts to permissive waste. See, e.g., Smith v. Smith, 241 S.W.2d 113, 114 (Ark. 1951); Stouter v. Bailey, 545 A.2d 98, 102 (Md.Ct.Spec.App. 1988); THE LAW OF WASTE 212; TIFFANY ON REAL PROPERTY ยง 642, at 653.See, e.g., Stouter v. Bailey, 545 A.2d at 102.
Some jurisdictions, though not the District of Columbia, have ameliorated the potential harshness of this common law rule through legislation that permits the tax sale purchaser to recover the cost of improvements, at least under defined circumstances. See, e.g., Stouter v. Bailey, 545 A.2d 98, 101 ( Md.Ct.Spec.App. 1988). But it is up to the legislature to take the initiative in this area, for sound reasons underlie the traditional rule against requiring the record owner to reimburse the tax purchaser for improvements: