Title: La Belle Epoque v. Old Europe Antique

State: maryland

Issuer: Maryland Supreme Court

Document:

La Belle Epoque, LLC, et al. v. Old Europe Antique Manor, LLC, et al. 
No. 127, September Term, 2007
SUMMARY JUDGMENT – Summary judgment is not proper when there is a genuine
dispute of material fact.  ASSIGNMENT OF LEASE – The trier of fact must determine
whether Double H Family and Desbois intended to surrender the Lease and/or whether
Double H Family intended to accept Old Europe as an assignee under the Lease, and
whether Double H, by its actions, waived the requirements of the Lease and Statute of
Frauds.  Thus, there are genuine disputes of material fact concerning Old Europe’s status
and summary judgment was in err.  Accordingly, the trial court erred in concluding, as a
matter of law, that Old Europe’s status on Double H Family’s property was that of either
a trespasser or licensee.
In the Circuit Court for Montgomery County
Civil No. 261403
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
OF MARYLAND
No. 127
September Term, 2007
LA BELLE EPOQUE, LLC, et al.
v.
OLD EUROPE ANTIQUE MANOR, LLC, et al.
Bell, C.J.
Harrell
Battaglia
Greene
Murphy
Raker, Irma S. (Retired, Specially
Assigned)
Cathell, Dale R. (Retired, Specially
Assigned),
JJ.
Opinion by Greene, J.
Harrell and Raker, JJ., join in judgment only.
Filed:   October 8, 2008
1Sanchez-Tintenier is referred to as “Tintenier” in the documents from some of the
earlier proceedings. 
In this case we must determine whether the Circuit Court for Montgomery County
properly entered summary judgment in favor of Petitioners, Double H Family, LLC, and its
principal Judith Goozh (collectively, “Double H Family”) and La Belle Epoque, LLC, and
its owners Mark Hoover and Marie Christine Hoover (collectively, “La Belle Epoque”).  On
the record before us, we shall hold that the Circuit Court erred in granting summary judgment
on the basis  that there was no genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Respondent, Old
Europe Manor,  LLC (“Old Europe”) was a tenant of Double H Family.  Further, we shall
hold that the Circuit Court erred in concluding, as a matter of law, that Old Europe’s status
on Double H Family’s property was that of either a licensee or a trespasser.
In February 2003, the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area was hit by a winter storm
of unusually heavy rain and snowfall. Following the storm, Old Europe sustained
considerable water damage to its merchandise and the space it occupied, allegedly, when
runoff water trapped by accumulated trash and debris infiltrated the premises at 4124-F
Howard Avenue in Kensington, Maryland.  On May 2, 2005, Old Europe and owner,
Isabelle Sanchez-Tintenier,1filed a civil action seeking damages from Double H Family and
La Belle Epoque.  Old Europe sued Double H Family for negligence, breach of contract, and
breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.  In the negligence count against La
Belle Epoque, Old Europe maintained that La Belle Epoque negligently created the pile of
debris and trash outside the shared building which subsequently led to the infiltration of
runoff water into Old Europe’s space.  Upon motions by La Belle Epoque and Double H
2 Md. Code (1974, 2003 Repl Vol.) § 5-103 of the Real Property Article.
3Double H Family presented the following questions in its petition: 
1. Whether the Court [of Special Appeals]’s holding that a non-
tenant’s payment of rent creates a commercial tenancy at common law
imposes a new and commercially unreasonable duty upon Landlords
to verify the payor of each and every rental payment before
acceptance?
2. Whether a common law commercial tenant is entitled to the same
consumer protections given a residential tenant at common law?
3. Whether the Court [of Special Appeals]’s decision is against the
public interest as it creates uncertainty with regard to the
landlord/tenant relationship?
(continued...)
-2-
Family, the Circuit Court for Montgomery County granted summary judgment on all counts
against Old Europe.  
Old Europe filed a timely appeal to the Court of Special Appeals and that court
subsequently vacated the Circuit Court’s judgment.  The intermediate appellate court agreed
with the trial court that Old Europe could not assert rights against Double H Family under
a lease that was orally transferred to Old Europe because the oral assignment did not  satisfy
the Statute of Frauds.2  The Court of Special Appeals  concluded, however, “that there [we]re
material disputes as to whether Old Europe became Double H Family’s periodic tenant by
operation of law and as to whether Double H Family and La Belle Epoque negligently caused
damage to its neighbor.”  We granted both Double H Family’s and La Belle Epoque’s
petitions for writ of certiorari.3
3(...continued)
La Belle Epoque presented the following questions in its petition:
1.  If a tenant abandons a leased property, and a new party takes
possession of the property without a lease, does the new party
automatically become a tenant even if the landlord was unaware of the
change?
2. Can a person (or entity) gain the benefits of tenancy by simply
taking over the leased premises and submitting checks to the landlord,
even when the landlord is not aware that the new person (or entity) is
different from the tenant?
-3-
   
BACKGROUND
The relevant facts taken in a light most favorable to Old Europe are as follows.
Double H Family is the owner of a commercial two-story building on Howard Avenue in
Kensington, Maryland.  The building has two leased spaces: 4088-A Howard Avenue (the
upstairs space) and 4124-F Howard Avenue (the downstairs space).  The building sits against
the side of a hill so that the downstairs space opens onto Howard Avenue and the upstairs
space can only be accessed by “an [elevated] alley at the base of the building that runs
parallel to Howard Avenue.” 
On July 23, 2001, Double H Family executed a five-year lease (“the Lease”) with
Francois Desbois for the premises known as 4124-F Howard Avenue for the operation of his
antique business, Vieille France Antiques.  Both Desbois and Sanchez-Tintenier, who was
the vice president and secretary of Vieille France Antiques at that time, were present at the
signing of the Lease.  Sanchez-Tintenier played a large role in negotiating the Lease because
Desbois does not speak English.  At some time either prior to or after the execution of the
-4-
Lease with Desbois, Double H Family leased 4088-A Howard Avenue to La Belle Epoque
for its antique storage business. 
The Lease between Double H Family and Desbois commenced on September 1, 2001,
for a five year term ending on August 31, 2006.  In relevant part to this appeal, the Lease
reads:
2.5 Repairs and Improvements. Landlord shall deliver the Premises
with all electrical, mechanical and plumbing systems and equipment
in good working condition. And will replace the sink and toilet.
Landlord shall be responsible for maintenance and repair of the roof,
exterior walls, foundation, downspouts, gutters and structural
elements of the building of which the Premises are a part, unless such
repair or maintenance is necessitated by any act or neglect of Tenant
or anyone acting by, through or under Tenant.
Except as provided in the preceding paragraph, Tenant shall promptly
repair, at Tenant’s expense, any damage to the Premises and to any
equipment, systems, and facilities therein, and will make all repairs
and replacements thereto, whether such repairs and replacements be
necessitated by ordinary wear and tear or other event of any kind,
except a Casualty as provided in Section 3.2 hereof. Without limiting
the generality of the foregoing, Tenant’s maintenance, repair and
replacement responsibilities shall include the interior of the Premises,
all doors, windows and loading docks, if any, and all electrical,
mechanical, plumbing, heating, ventilating, air conditioning, security,
fire prevention, and sprinkler systems and equipment, if any, presently
or hereafter installed in the Premises. Tenant has had the opportunity
to inspect the Premises and is leasing the Premises “AS IS”, without
any representation, warranty, or covenant by the Landlord or Agent
respecting the suitability of the Premises for Tenant’s use thereof of
the condition of the Premises or any element thereof.
* * *
Tenant shall pay all expenses of operating and maintaining the
Premises, including, but not limited to, expenses for refusal removal,
-5-
janitorial services, carpet cleaning, and painting. . . . 
* * *
2.7 Notices. All notices hereunder shall be made in writing and shall
be hand delivered or mailed by Registered or Certified U.S. Mail,
Return Receipt Requested, First Class, postage prepaid, to the parties
hereto at their respective addresses set forth below, or at such other
address of which either party shall notify the other in accordance with
the provisions hereof. Any notice required to be given hereunder on
or before a specified date shall be deemed to have been duly and
timely given if hand delivered before 5:00 P.M. on such date, or when
given by mail as aforesaid, if postmarked before Midnight on such
date. Notices given by mail shall be addressed:
IF TO LANDLORD:
Double H Family LLC
c/o David Dant
Michael Management, Inc.
4390 Parliament Place, Suite A
Lanham, Maryland 20706
IF TO TENANT:
Desbois Francis
4124-F Howard Avenue
Kensington, Maryland 20875
* * *
3.1 Assignment and Subletting. Tenant will not assign this Lease, in
whole or in part, or sublet all or any part of the Premises, without first
obtaining the Landlord’s written consent.  This prohibition includes
any subletting or assignment which would otherwise occur by
operation of law, merger, consolidation, reorganization, transfer, or
other change of Tenant’s corporate or proprietary structure, or an
assignment or subletting to or by a receiver or trustee in any
bankruptcy, insolvency, or other proceedings.  Consent by Landlord
to any assignment or subletting shall not constitute a waiver of the
requirement for Landlord’s consent to any subsequent assignment or
subletting.  The acceptance by Landlord of the payment of rent
following any assignment of subletting shall not be deemed to be a
-6-
consent by Landlord to such assignment or subletting.
Sanchez-Tintenier was principally responsible for the operation of Desbois’s business.
She was the sole employee of the store from the outset of Desbois’s tenancy.  She managed
the store, corresponded with Double H Family’s leasing agent on matters affecting the
business, and prepared checks drawn on Desbois’s Riggs banking account for Desbois’s
signature (Sanchez-Tintenier never signed checks on behalf of Desbois).  Sanchez-Tintenier
was single-handedly responsible for the store’s operation because Desbois did not live in the
United States.  Instead, he lived in France and visited the United States every two or three
months for 10 to 14 days at a time.  Sanchez-Tintenier was not, however, responsible for the
store’s inventory and pricing; that task was left solely to Desbois. 
About a year into Desbois’s five-year Lease with Double H Family, Desbois removed
his merchandise from the premises and discontinued his U.S. business.  Sanchez-Tintenier
took over  the premises in July or August 2002, paying Desbois approximately $10,000 to
do so.  Sanchez-Tintenier recalled that she paid Desbois “$7,500 for the rent and then $2,500
in a security deposit.”  Desbois sold Sanchez-Tintenier the business name –  Vieille France
Antiques –  for $1.00.  Sanchez-Tintenier, however, initially called her business “Vieille
France and German Antiques,” but soon after September 11, 2001, she changed the name to
“Old Europe Antique Manor.” Despite the name change, Sanchez-Tintenier did not replace
the sign bearing the name “Vieille France Antiques” until September 2003, after the flood
in February. 
4 Michael Management, Inc. was the property manager for Double H Family. The
record reflects that, as property manager, Michael Management collected rent from tenants,
assisted with lease contracts, addressed tenant concerns, and made minor repairs. The record
further reflects that upon collecting tenants’ lease payments, Michael Management deposited
the checks into its checking account, paid itself an agreed upon commission, and then
forwarded the remaining amount of rent collected to Double H Family via check from its
(Michael Management’s) bank account.
5The certified checks and money orders do not contain account identification
information.
-7-
Sanchez-Tintenier believed “that both Michael Management4 and Double H Family
knew that [she] was the tenant of 4124-F Howard Avenue.”  Sanchez-Tintenier contends that
she told David Dant of Michael Management “that I am going to take care of the store and
to take over the store and that [Desbois] don’t (sic) want anymore.”  She further contends that
Dant told her “[t]hat it was no problem” and “that was fine to take it over.”  Sanchez-
Tintenier understood that she would be subject to the Lease that was signed by Desbois. 
According to Sanchez-Tintenier, she informed Dant of the transfer and was never told by
Michael Management that she needed to contact Double H Family directly. 
After taking over the space from Desbois in August 2002, Sanchez-Tintenier made
monthly rental payments to Michael Management for the next 17 months.  She usually wrote
the checks on her Riggs bank account, in the name of “Old Europe Antique Manor LLC[;]”
although, between five and seven times she paid the rent by certified check or money order.5
Although Michael Management accepted rental payments from Sanchez-Tintenier, it
continued to address the rental bills to Desbois. 
Storm Damage
-8-
In its complaint, Old Europe contends that in the weeks prior to the February 2003
storm, La Belle Epoque “negligently and recklessly created a huge pile of debris outside” the
building that Old Europe and La Belle Epoque occupied.  On behalf of Old Europe,
Sanchez-Tintenier also contends that she issued complaints, about the accumulated debris,
to Michael Management, Double H Family’s leasing agent; however, Double H Family and
La Belle Epoque “failed to cause the debris to be removed” prior to the flood.  It is alleged
that when Kensington was hit with “substantial snowfall and rain,” melted snow and surface
water accumulated among the debris, entered the building through the second floor and then
“poured into the antiques store.”  According to Old Europe, “[t]he area of the property that
caused the damage was in the exterior part of the property, where tenant La Belle Epoque had
placed garbage and debris” outside its upstairs unit.  Sanchez-Tintenier described the water
infiltration as a “flood,” where the “water was going around the walls like Niagara Falls, and
the ceiling too.”  Water accumulated up to about 20 to 25 centimeters in the store.  According
to Sanchez-Tintenier, she suffered more than $300,000.00 in damages to her inventory and
was “forced . . . to close” as a result of the flood.  In addition, Sanchez-Tintenier contends
that she suffered cardiac problems relating to the stress of dealing with the aftermath of the
flood.
Post-Storm Dealings
According to Sanchez-Tintenier, after the storm damage in February 2003, Double
H Family’s  agent “came on several occasions to inspect the damage from the flood, and met
6 This fact is not significant to our analysis because the losses complained about in this
action occurred prior to April 1, 2003. 
-9-
with [Old Europe’s] former attorney, Bill Scanlin, on several occasions.”  In April 2003, the
agent notified Sanchez-Tintenier that she “could reenter the premises.”  In May 2003, the
agent entered the premises to take photos of a ceiling that had collapsed.  In June, July, and
September of 2003, as well as January and February of 2004, the agent inspected the
premises and, according to Sanchez-Tintenier, “[o]n each of the occasions he promised that
he would take [care] of the damage and make needed repairs.”  
In addition, Sanchez-Tintenier “met Lou Kressin of Double H Family” at least twice
after the flood.  In May 2003, Kressin came to the premises and told Sanchez-Tintenier “that
he was [her] landlord and that he was there to meet an insurance agent to file a claim
[regarding] the flood.” Sanchez-Tintenier met Kressin again in March 2004 when the
Montgomery County Environmental Protection Agency inspected the premises after a report
of mold infestation.  On April 1, 2003, Sanchez-Tintenier and Desbois presented to Double
H Family a signed amendment to the original Lease transferring the Lease from Desbois to
Sanchez-Tintenier.  Double H Family, however, would not consent to the assignment at that
time.6
Legal Proceedings
On May 2, 2005, Old Europe filed, in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, a
complaint against Double H Family and La Belle Epoque.  Old Europe alleged that Double
H Family was liable for negligence, breach of contract, and breach of the covenant of good
7 The court entered a written order on May 26, 2006, incorporating its oral judgment
of May 16, 2006.
-10-
faith and fair dealing.  The complaint also alleged that La Belle Epoque was guilty of
negligence.  Double H Family moved for summary judgment, arguing that Old Europe was
not a tenant under the terms of the written Lease, because the Lease was executed between
Desbois and Double H Family and did not allow for assignments without the written consent
of Double H Family.  In addition,  Double H Family argued that Old Europe had not alleged
or offered evidence to establish that Double H Family had breached its duty to refrain from
willful injury or entrapment.  La Belle Epoque moved to dismiss the complaint, or, in the
alternative, moved for summary judgment, arguing that Old Europe did not allege or offer
evidence showing that La Belle Epoque breached its duty under Maryland law; that is, to
refrain from willful injury or entrapment of a trespasser.   
On May 16, 2006, the Circuit Court granted summary judgment in favor of Double
H Family and La Belle Epoque on all counts.7  The court explained:
I really don’t see that there’s any facts to support that Ms.
Tintenier is a tenant . . . .  She always operated as an agent for the
actual tenant, Mr. [Desbois]. . . .  I think there is a valid statute of
frauds issue. I certainly think that if she’s not the tenant, which the
[c]ourt finds that she wasn’t, she would either be a trespasser or a bare
licensee.  And certainly, it’s true then the duty would be not anything
other than just willful injury. And there is nothing like that alleged
here.  
On May 26, 2006, Sanchez-Tintenier filed a notice of appeal to the Court of Special
Appeals.  On August 30, 2007, the intermediate appellate court issued an unreported opinion
-11-
vacating the judgment of the Circuit Court.  The Court of Special Appeals held that the
Circuit Court correctly concluded that “Old Europe cannot assert the rights of an assignee
under the Lease against Double H Family.”  Ultimately the court held that the Circuit Court
“erred in concluding as a matter of law that there was no tenancy relationship.”  The
intermediate appellate court explained: 
An occupant who is present with the landlord’s knowledge and
pays rent may have a common law tenancy giving rise to a suit that is
not barred by the statute of frauds. 
* * *
On this record, Old Europe could establish a month-to-month
tenancy under common law, because rent payments were made one
month in advance, after Tintenier notified Dant that she was taking
over for Desbois, and Dant agreed to that arrangement on behalf of
Double H Family.  Contrary to Double H Family’s contention, there
is ample evidence from which a reasonable person might conclude
that Double H Family was aware of Old Europe’s tenancy, accepted
it, and therefore ‘granted possession’ of the premises to Old Europe.
Furthermore, the court held that the Circuit Court erred in concluding that Double H
Family could not be liable under established negligence principles governing liability to
occupiers of land.  The intermediate appellate court explained: 
As owner of the property, Double H Family occupied and
controlled the common area where La Belle Epoque allegedly placed
water-collecting and -diverting junk.  According to Kressin, he and his
agents were aware before the flood that the common area adjacent to
La Belle Epoque’s premises ‘resembled a junk yard,’ and he
instructed Dant to have it cleaned up.  In the aftermath of the storm,
water that was allegedly collected and redirected as a result of the
debris infiltrated both La Belle Epoque’s and Old Europe’s premises.
In these circumstances, a reasonable person could conclude that
Double H Family breached its duty of care to Old Europe.
-12-
The Court of Special Appeals further held that the Circuit Court erred in granting
summary judgment in favor of La Belle Epoque.  The intermediate appellate court stated:
“[T]here is evidence from which a fact finder might conclude that La Belle Epoque’s
activities on or around its premises (i.e., storing junk) proximately caused the flood that
damaged Old Europe’s property.” 
DISCUSSION
Standard of Review
In Anderson v. The Gables, 404 Md. 560, 948 A.2d 11(2008), we summarized the
standards applicable to our review of the grant of a motion for summary judgment:
In considering a trial court's grant of a motion for summary
judgment, this Court reviews the record in the light most favorable to
the non-moving party. Bednar v. Provident Bank of Maryland, Inc.,
402 Md. 532, 542, 937 A.2d 210, 215 (2007); Rhoads v. Sommer, 401
Md. 131, 148, 931 A.2d 508, 518 (2007) (“We review the record in
the light most favorable to the non-moving party and construe any
reasonable inferences that may be drawn from the facts against the
moving party”); Harford County v. Saks Fifth Ave. Distribution Co.,
399 Md. 73, 82, 923 A.2d 1, 6 (2007) (In reviewing a trial court's
decision on a motion for summary judgment, “we seek to determine
whether any material facts are in dispute and, if they are, we resolve
them in favor of the non-moving party”); Serio v. Baltimore County,
384 Md. 373, 388-89, 863 A.2d 952, 961 (2004); Lovelace v.
Anderson, 366 Md. 690, 695, 785 A.2d 726, 728 (2001) (In reviewing
a grant of the defendants' motions for summary judgment, “we must
review the facts, and all inferences therefrom, in the light most
favorable to the plaintiffs”).  If no material facts are placed in genuine
dispute, this Court must determine whether the Circuit Court correctly
entered summary judgment as a matter of law. See Maryland Rule
2-501(f); Bednar, 402 Md. at 532, 937 A.2d at 216; Saks, 399 Md. at
82, 923 A.2d at 6; Prop. and Cas. Ins. Guar. Corp. v. Yanni, 397 Md.
474, 480, 919 A.2d 1, 5 (2007); Standard Fire Ins. Co. v. Berrett, 395
Md. 439, 451, 910 A.2d 1072, 1079 (2006); Ross v. State Bd. of
8 The record reveals, however, that the change in the building’s sign occurred after the
(continued...)
-13-
Elections, 387 Md. 649, 659, 876 A.2d 692, 698 (2005).
Anderson, 404 Md. at 571, 948 A.2d at 18. In addition, “when reviewing the grant of a
motion for summary judgment, ordinarily, [our review] is limited to the grounds relied upon
by the [trial] court.”  Deering Woods v. Spoon, 377 Md. 250, 263, 833 A.2d 17, 24 (2003).
Essentially, in reviewing a trial court’s grant of summary judgment, we examine “the same
information from the record and determine the same issues of law as the trial court.”  Miller
v. Bay City, 393 Md. 620, 632, 903 A.2d 938, 945 (2006).  We only look to the evidence
submitted in opposition and support of the motion for summary judgment in reviewing the
trial court’s decision to grant the motion.  Miller, 393 Md. 620, 903 A.2d 938; Livesay v.
Baltimore, 384 Md. 1, 10, 862 A.2d 33, 38 (2004).
Breach of Contract and the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair-Dealing
Old Europe contends that Double H Family breached the original Lease between
Double H Family and Desbois (purportedly transferred to Old Europe) and violated the
covenant of good faith and fair-dealing by failing to provide a rental space fit for ordinary
use.  Old Europe posits that it is a valid assignee of the Lease and that Double H Family
waived its ability to contest the assignment to Old Europe when it accepted Old Europe’s rent
with knowledge of Old Europe’s presence on the premises.  To establish that Double H
Family knew of and consented to a landlord-tenant relationship, Old Europe points to the
change in the signage on the building,8 its payment of seventeen consecutive months of rent,9
8(...continued)
flood.
9The record reveals that Sanchez-Tintenier only made six to seven rent payments prior
to the February 2003 flood.
-14-
and the timely response by Double H Family’s agent in making repairs to the shop during the
alleged assignment period.  Old Europe also contends that the Court of Special Appeals was
correct in its conclusion that it was a commercial tenant at common law.  Further, Old Europe
argues that it was a periodic tenant of Double H Family based upon its entry onto the
premises and subsequent payment of rent.  In that regard, Old Europe relies primarily on
Annapolis Fire v. Rich, 239 Md. 573, 212 A.2d 249 (1965).
Double H Family contends, however, that the Court of Special Appeals’s holding
erroneously creates a “commercial tenancy” at common law.  Specifically, it argues that “the
payment of rent by a non-tenant is insufficient to create a new “commercial tenancy” in favor
of the entity making the payment.”  Double H Family posits that Old Europe was never a
tenant because Double H Family, as landlord, never granted Old Europe the right of
possession.  In this regard, Double H Family argues that the attempted assignment of the
leasehold from Desbois to Old Europe was invalid because Desbois provided no written
notice of the assignment to Double H Family as required by the written Lease; and,
moreover, prior to the flood, Desbois failed to provide any notice of the assignment
whatsoever (verbal or written). 
In addition, Double H Family contends that an employee’s continued presence at a
-15-
place of employment and payment of rent is insufficient to create a “commercial tenancy”
by operation of Maryland law.  Double H Family specifically points out that this case is
distinguishable from Annapolis Fire because in that case, “the tenant clearly and
unambiguously gave verbal or written notice that an assignment occurred, and the landlord
consented to the change in the lease’s terms.” Pertinent to this contention, Double H Family
argues that the only verbal or written notice of intent it received from Sanchez-Tintenier  was
when she stated “[I am] going to take care of the store” and that  this statement is ambiguous
and implies “a future action” or “one that has not come to fruition yet.”  Moreover, Double
H Family asserts that under Maryland law, a landlord must  have clear notice of and consent
to its involvement in a “commercial tenancy” and that holding otherwise will create
ambiguity and inconsistency in landlord/tenant relationships. 
In essence we are asked to determine, for purposes of our review of a grant of
summary judgment, whether on the record before us, Old Europe held a legally cognizable
property interest in the premises known as 4124-F Howard Avenue at the time of the flood.
First, we must determine whether Desbois made a valid assignment of the original Lease to
Sanchez-Tintenier.  This requires us to determine if the alleged assignment is enforceable in
accordance with the written Lease between Double H Family and Desbois and in accordance
with the Maryland Statute of Frauds.  
A lessee may transfer his or her interest in a lease agreement by assignment.  Italian
Fisherman v. Middlemas, 313 Md. 156, 163, 545 A.2d 1, 4 (1988). When a lease is assigned,
an assignee “steps into the lessee’s shoes and acquires all the lessee’s rights in the lease.”
-16-
Italian Fisherman, 313 Md. at 163, 545 A.2d at 4.  Privity of estate ends between the lessor
and lessee and is created between the lessor and the assignee.  Italian Fisherman, 313 Md.
at 163,  545 A.2d at 4.  Contractual rights are assigned when the assignor manifests the intent
to make the assignment.  See Central Collection v. Columbia Medical, 300 Md. 318, 331,
478 A.2d 303, 309 (1984) (“In determining the validity of [the] assignment we look to the
intent of the parties.”); accord E. ALLEN  FARNSWORTH, FARNSWORTH ON CONTRACTS,
Assignment and Delegation, § 11.3 at 69 (3rd ed. 2004) (“Whether the owner of a right has
manifested an intention to transfer it is a question of contract interpretation to be answered
from all the circumstances, including words and other conduct.”).
For an assignment of a leasehold interest to be enforceable, however, it must comply
with provisions found within the original lease agreement and applicable statutory law.  See
Julian v. Christopher, 320 Md. 1, 7, 575 A.2d 735, 737 (1990) (“Contractual restrictions on
alienability of leasehold interests are permitted.”); See also Lamm v. Port Deposit Homestead
Association & c., 49 Md. 233, 240 (1878) (explaining that the Statute of Frauds applies to
contracts for the sale of land and in any interest in or concerning them).  In pertinent part, the
Lease between Desbois and Double H Family stated: “Tenant will not assign this Lease, in
whole or in part, or sublet all or any part of the Premises, without first obtaining the
Landlord’s written consent . . . .The acceptance by Landlord of the payment of rent following
any assignment or subletting shall not be deemed to be a consent by the Landlord to such
assignment or subletting.”
On this record, there is no evidence of any writing purporting to assign Desbois’s
10 To determine if Double H Family waived the terms of the Lease and the Statute of
Frauds it is necessary for the trier of fact to determine if, through its agent Michael
Management, or otherwise, Double H Family gained sufficient knowledge of the alleged
assignment to Old Europe (Sanchez-Tintenier) and Old Europe’s rental payments.  
-17-
leasehold interest prior to the flood. There is also no evidence that  Desbois notified Double
H Family verbally or in writing of his intent to assign his leasehold interest to Sanchez-
Tintenier. There is, however, evidence that Sanchez-Tintenier, who often interacted with
Double H Family on Desbois’s behalf, notified Double H Family’s agent, Michael
Management, Inc., that she was “taking over” the premises and that Desbois no longer
wanted the store.  During this conversation, David Dant indicated to Sanchez-Tintenier that
it would be “no problem” and “fine” for her to takeover.  The record further indicates that
Double H Family accepted rent payments from Sanchez-Tintenier (rather than Desbois) for
several months after this conversation. 
We hold that the record before us presents genuine issues of material fact regarding
whether Double H Family waived its ability to contest the validity of the assignment from
Desbois to Sanchez-Tintenier under the terms of the Lease and whether Double H Family is
estopped from arguing the assignment is non-enforceable under the Statute of Frauds.10  A
party waives a contractual right by intentionally relinquishing the right or engaging in
conduct that warrants the inference that the right has been relinquished.  Food Fair v.
Blumberg, 234 Md. 521, 531, 200 A.2d 166, 172 (1964).  Whether a waiver has taken place
is generally an issue of intent, which is determined by the factual circumstances of each case.
 See Chertkof  v. Southland Corp., 280 Md. 1, 6, 371 A.2d 124, 127 (1977) (“We have, in
-18-
common with many other courts, treated waiver of a breach by the acceptance of rent as a
matter of intent, which necessarily turns on the factual circumstances of each case.”); Chas.
J. Frank, Inc. v. Assoc. Jewish Ch., 294 Md. 443, 449, 450 A.2d 1304, 1306-07 (1982).
Generally under Maryland law,  when a lessor accepts rent from a new entity with knowledge
that the lease has been assigned to that entity, the lessor waives the ability to contest the
assignment under a lease covenant that provides the lease may not be assigned without the
lessor’s written consent.  See Chertkof, 280 Md. 1, 371 A.2d 124 (Landlord’s acceptance of
rent from assignee for two years, along with repeated negotiations to renew lease, constitutes
waiver of the breach of covenant prohibiting the assignment of the lease without consent);
See also RICHARD POWELL, POWELL ON REAL PROPERTY, § 17.04 (2) (a) at 17-50 (Michael
A. Wolf ed. 2000) (“Although the mere acceptance of rent after a prohibited assignment will
not normally be considered a waiver, continued acceptance of rent coupled with knowledge
of the assignment generally is construed as a waiver.”); accord Sarete, Inc. v. 1344 U St. Ltd.
P’ship, 871 A.2d 480 (D.C. 2005). 
On this record, a trier of fact could also find that an assignment occurred by operation
of law and that Double H Family is estopped from contesting its validity pursuant to Md.
Code (1974, 2003 Repl. Vol.), Real Property Article § 5-103.  According to § 5-103: “No
corporeal estate, leasehold or freehold, or incorporeal interest in land may be assigned,
granted, or surrendered, unless it is in writing signed by the party assigning, granting, or
surrendering it, or his agent authorized lawfully by writing, or by act and operation of law.”
An assignment that occurs by act and operation of law escapes the purview of § 5-103's
-19-
writing requirement.  See  Prevas v. Gottlieb, 229 Md. 188, 193-194, 182 A.2d 489, 492-93
(1962) (illustrating that “act and operation of law” does not involve a writing, but refers to
conduct a party engages in that may not be denied because of the principal of estoppel).  A
leasehold interest in land is assigned, granted, or surrendered by operation of law when the
parties form the common intent for the assignment, grant, or surrender to take place and then
engage in acts that are “tantamount to a stipulation” to effectuate the assignment.  See
Eidelman v.  Walker & Dunlop, 265 Md. 538, 544, 290 A.2d 780, 784 (1972) (explaining
how a surrender occurs by operation of law under § 5-103); See also Prevas, 229 Md. at 193-
194, 182 A.2d at 492-93.
We conclude, on the basis of the record before us, that a reasonable trier of fact could
find that the attempt to assign the leasehold estate to Old Europe was a departure from the
terms of the written Lease and constituted a transfer within the Statute of Frauds. 
Notwithstanding the terms of the Lease and the requirements of the Statute of Frauds, the
trier of fact could find that Double H Family waived both the requirements of the Lease and
the Statute of Frauds.  As a result of these findings, the trier of fact could conclude that Old
Europe stands in the shoes of the original tenant, Debois, pursuant to the original Lease.
Thus, based upon a determination that the leasehold was transferred by operation of law, the
trier of fact could then decide the merits of Old Europe’s breach of contract and breach of
covenant of good faith and fair dealings claims.  Accordingly, we disagree with the Court of
Special Appeals’s conclusion that the Circuit Court correctly determined that Old Europe,
as a matter of law, cannot assert the rights of an assignee under the Lease entered into
11 We were not asked to decide, nor have we decided, whether Old Europe may have
had a valid property interest in 4124-F Howard Avenue under a sublease.
-20-
between Double H Family and Desbois. 
Assuming there was no assignment by operation of law, Old Europe posits that its
possession of the leased premises and payment of rent to Double H Family created a  tenancy
at common law.11  Old Europe cites Annapolis Fire to support this position.  In Annapolis
Fire, General and Excess Underwriters, Inc., the original tenant under a written lease,
notified the landlord that two other entities would begin leasing the premises along with it.
239 Md. at 578, 212 A.2d at 252. The landlord expressly agreed to this arrangement and
confirmed that agreement in writing.  Annapolis Fire, 239 Md. at 578-79, 212 A.2d at 252.
This Court concluded that the parties’ oral agreement to add the two new tenants constituted
a surrender of the original lease between  the original parties and the creation of a new
agreement between the landlord and all three tenants.  Annapolis Fire, 239 Md. at 585, 212
A.2d at 255.  When the oral tenancy expired and the two newer tenants stayed on, we held
they had a common law periodic tenancy, reasoning that such a tenancy is implied when one
is both in possession of the premises by grant of the owner and pays rent to the owner.
Annapolis Fire, 239 Md. at 582, 585, 212 A.2d at 254. 
Here, in order to determine if Old Europe established a common law tenancy (or
“commercial tenancy”) in the premises at 4124-F Howard Avenue, it is first necessary to
determine whether Desbois surrendered his existing leasehold interest in the premises.
Surrenders, like assignments, are subject to § 5-103 and can arise by act and operation of law.
-21-
For this to occur, both parties to the original lease agreement must evidence the common
intent to relinquish their legal relationship and take actions that clearly evidence  that intent.
Eidelman, 265 Md. at 543-44, 290 A.2d 783-84; Prevas, 229 Md. at 193, 182 A. 2d at 492;
accord Beall v. White, 94 U.S. 382, 389 (1876) (A surrender occurs by operation of law
“when the parties without express surrender do some act which implies that they have both
agreed to consider the surrender as made.”).  Determinations of whether a surrender has
occurred are made on a case by case basis and are generally a matter for the trier of fact.  See
Eidelman, 265 Md. at 543, 290 A.2d at 783.  
A surrender of the original leasehold interest occurred in Annapolis Fire when the
original tenant expressly indicated to the landlord that the tenant wished to share his
leasehold interest in the premises with two other tenants, the landlord clearly agreed to this
arrangement (verbally and in writing), and the parties engaged in conduct consistent with this
agreement.  It was only after the  surrender of the original lease that the new lease between
the three entities, and later the periodic tenancy, came into existence.  The record before us,
and the reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, presents genuine issues of material fact as
to whether Desbois and Double H Family surrendered their lease agreement.      
Intent is a key inquiry in this case.  The trier of fact must determine whether Double
H Family and Desbois intended to surrender the Lease and/or whether Double H Family
intended to accept Old Europe as an assignee under the Lease, and whether Double H
12A trier of fact might also, of course, determine that none of these things occurred.
-22-
Family, by its actions, waived the requirements of the Lease and Statute of Frauds.12  If the
trier of fact determines that Desbois and Double H Family surrendered the Lease agreement,
then the inquiry properly turns to whether Old Europe acquired a common law tenancy in the
premises.
Negligence Counts Against Double H Family and La Belle Epoque
Double H Family and La Belle Epoque contend that because Old Europe was not an
authorized tenant of 4124-F Howard Avenue, it may only be considered a trespasser or a bare
licensee to whom  a minimum duty, i.e., the duty to avoid willful injury or entrapment, was
owed.  Additionally, Double H Family posits that it owed no duty to maintain the common
areas under the Lease agreement because the Lease specifically designated this responsibility
to the tenant.  It further states  that even if it did reserve control over the common areas in
the Lease agreement, it exercised the reasonable care and diligence required of it to maintain
such areas.  Old Europe argues that it had a lawful tenancy in the premises and was owed,
at the minimum, a duty of reasonable care.
Upon review of the record, we agree with the Court of Special Appeals  that the
Circuit Court erred in concluding that Old Europe was a bare licensee or a trespasser as to
the negligence counts against Double H Family and La Belle Epoque.  We have determined
that a genuine dispute of material fact exists concerning Old Europe’s status as an assignee
under the Lease and whether the Lease between Desbois and Double H Family was
13 Even assuming arguendo that Old Europe did not gain a leasehold interest in the
premises, the facts before us do not support the Circuit Court’s conclusion that Old Europe
was on the premises as a trespasser or bare licensee.  If Old Europe acquired no leasehold
interest, then Desbois remained the tenant of the premises at all times and as leaseholder, was
entitled to invite others to enter and occupy the leased premises. The facts before us  establish
that Old Europe was present on the premises at 4124-F Howard Avenue at Desbois’s
invitation and with his consent.  A trial court’s determination of an individual’s status on the
subject premises, at the time of the injury, is not necessarily affected by the consent (or lack
thereof) of the landlord if the tenant consented to the individual’s presence. See PROSSER &
KEETON, THE LAW OF TORTS § 63, at 434 (W. Keeton 5th ed. 1984) (“When land is leased
to a tenant, the law of property regards the lease as equivalent to a sale of the premises for
the term. The lessee acquires an estate in the land, and becomes for the time being both
owner and occupier, subject to the responsibilities of one in possession, to those who enter
upon the land and those outside its boundaries.”); accord Henley v. Prince George’s County,
305 Md. 320, 338, 503 A.2d 1333, 1342 (1986). 
-23-
surrendered.  If a trier of fact finds that Old Europe had a valid leasehold interest, then the
trier of fact must also determine if Double H  Family breached  duties owed to Old Europe
by virtue of Maryland law and/or the Lease agreement.13
If we assume arguendo that Old Europe acquired a leasehold interest and that the
alley involved in this case is a common area, it is well established, under Maryland law, that
a landlord ordinarily has control over the common areas, and has a duty to avoid
unreasonable  risks of harm to others caused by activities conducted within the common
areas.  See Langley Park Apts. v. Lund, Adm’r, 234 Md. 402, 407, 199 A.2d 620, 623 (1964)
(“[W]here a landlord leases separate portions of his property to different tenants and reserves
under his control the passageways and stairways, and other parts of the property for the
common use of all the tenants he must exercise ordinary care and diligence to maintain the
retained portions in a reasonably safe condition.”); See also  Matthews v. Amberwood, 351
-24-
Md. 544, 557-58, 719 A. 2d 119, 125 (1998) (A landlord may be held liable for neglecting
to remedy defects or dangers in an area that the landlord controls.).  Moreover, Maryland law
provides that a landlord may not include exculpatory clauses within leases that exempt the
landlord from liability for harm that occurs in areas that the landlord controls.  Md. Code
(1974, 2003 Repl. Vol), § 8-105 of the Real Property Article; See also Prince Phillip
Partnership v. Cutlip, 321 Md. 296, 304, 582 A.2d 992, 995 (1990); Adloo v. H.T. Brown,
344 Md. 254, 259, 686 A.2d 298, 301 n.4 (1996).  Accordingly, upon the record before us,
if a reasonable trier of fact finds that Double H Family maintained control of the alley at
issue in this case, the trier of fact could also conclude that Double H Family breached its duty
to exercise reasonable care in maintaining the alley.  
As to La Belle Epoque, it would be liable for its own negligence for injury caused to
others resulting from the placement of debris in the alley, whether or not the alley is
considered a common area.  See Frenkil v. Johnson, 175 Md. 592, 599, 3 A.2d 479, 482
(1939) (“[O]ne must use their own rights and property so as to do no injury to those of
others.”); Rosenblatt v. Exxon, 335 Md. 58, 76, 642 A. 2d 180, 189 (1994) (“[T]he occupier
of land owes a duty to occupants of neighboring land to use care when conducting activities
on the land so as to avoid harm to the neighboring land.”).  When a person elects to do or
keep something on his or her property that exposes neighboring property to danger, that
person has a duty to make the condition reasonably safe.  Toy v. Atlantic Gulf & Pacific Co.,
176 Md. 197, 213, 4 A. 2d 757, 765 (1939).  A person who negligently fails to  make the
condition reasonably safe can be liable for harm that the condition causes to neighboring
-25-
premises.  See Toy, 176 Md. at 213, 4 A.2d at 765; See also Frenkil, 175 Md. at 600, 3 A.2d
at 482.  We hold that a reasonable trier of fact could conclude that the pile of trash and debris
that La Belle Epoque allegedly allowed to accumulate in the alley constituted a dangerous
condition on the  premises and that La Belle Epoque failed to remove the debris or protect
others from that condition.  Therefore, we conclude that genuine issues of material fact exist
regarding whether La Belle Epoque negligently caused injury to Old Europe.  As such, we
shall remand this matter to the Circuit Court for further proceedings consistent with this
opinion.
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF
SPECIAL APPEALS AFFIRMED
WITH COSTS.  
Harrell, J. and Raker, J. join judgment only.