Title: Rubin v. Josephson

State: maine

Issuer: Maine Supreme Court

Document:

Decided June 4, 1984. *666 Bernstein, Shur, Sawyer & Nelson, Peter J. Rubin (orally), Portland, for plaintiffs. Ricky L. Brunette (orally), Portland, for defendant. Before McKUSICK, C.J., and NICHOLS, ROBERTS, WATHEN, GLASSMAN and SCOLNIK, JJ. GLASSMAN, Justice. The defendant, Jean C. McCall Josephson, appeals from a judgment of the Superior Court (Cumberland County) denying her appeal from an order of the District Court, Portland, issuing a writ of possession upon the plaintiffs' complaint for forcible entry and detainer, 14 M.R.S.A. § 6001 (Supp.1983-1984). The defendant raises two issues for our review. First, the defendant contends the District Court erroneously determined that her written lease was terminated by reason of her nonpayment of rent. Second, the defendant argues the District Court exceeded its authority in a summary forcible entry and detainer action by entering findings of fact and conclusions of law pertaining to the plaintiffs' lack of responsibility for the damaged condition of the premises. Agreeing with the first contention, we reverse the judgment. Under a three-year written lease executed in January, 1982, Jean C. McCall Josephson entered into possession of a condominium unit in a development in Cape Elizabeth. When in October, 1982, Josephson became more than fourteen days in arrears in her monthly rental obligation, plaintiffs-lessors Peter J. Rubin, Howard A. Goldenfarb, and John P.M. Higgins served Josephson with notice to tender the rent due or quit the premises. Josephson failed to comply with the notice, and the current action for forcible entry and detainer, in which the plaintiffs seek to recover possession of the condominium unit, was instituted. On November 17, 1982, the defendant moved to dismiss the complaint. The defendant asserted the court was precluded from issuing a writ of possession of the premises because the complaint contained no allegation that the lease had been terminated or forfeited, and the lease contained no provision relating to termination or forfeiture for reason of nonpayment of rent. Subsequently, the defendant filed an answer to the complaint in which she admitted being over fourteen days in arrears in rent, but asserted such failure was excused. Three affirmative defenses were raised: the plaintiffs had breached the lease by failing to repair the premises as required; the condominium was damaged to an extent rendering it unfit for occupation as anticipated in the lease; and the plaintiffs had breached the covenant of habitability set forth in 14 M.R.S.A. § 6021 (1980 and Supp.1983-1984). After a two-day hearing, the District Court, on December 6, 1982, denied the defendant's motion to dismiss and issued a writ of possession of the premises. On December 30, 1982, upon a rule 52(a) motion by the defendant, the court entered findings of fact and conclusions of law in support of its holding. Finding 4 read: *667 The obligation to pay rent pursuant to the terms of the lease is a material, essential and substantial term of the lease and the lease was subject to termination for failure to pay rent, pursuant to paragraph 13 of the lease and otherwise according to law. Conclusion 1 read: The Defendant, without any legal justification, breached her lease with the Plaintiffs by failing to pay rent and the lease was thereafter properly terminated by Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs did not breach their lease obligations to the Defendant. Finding the plaintiffs had violated no statutory obligation to the defendant in regard to warranties,[1] and the plaintiffs had complied with the procedural requirements of 14 M.R.S.A. §§ 6001 and 6002, the court declared the plaintiffs were entitled to possession of the premises. The Superior Court affirmed,[2] and this appeal follows. I. The judicial power in a forcible entry and detainer actiona summary proceeding to determine who has a right to immediate possession of real property to the exclusion of anotheris purely statutory in origin.[3]Tozier v. Tozier, 437 A.2d 645 , 647 (Me.1981); Bicknell Manufacturing Co. v. Bennett, 417 A.2d 414 , 418 (Me. 1980); Eveleth v. Gill, 97 Me. 315, 317, 54 A. 756, 757 (1903). Therefore, to be entitled to a writ of possession upon a complaint for forcible entry and detainer, the party seeking possession must bring himself within the terms of the controlling statute. Gilbert v. Gerrity, 108 Me. 258, 260, 80 A. 704, 705 (1911); Eveleth v. Gill, 97 Me. at 317, 54 A. at 757. Accordingly, the plaintiffs must have alleged and proved sufficient facts bringing them within the terms and conditions of 14 M.R.S.A. § 6001, which in pertinent portion reads: § 6001. Availability of remedy 1. Persons against whom process may be maintained. Process of forcible entry and detainer may be maintained against a disseisor who has not acquired any claim by possession and improvement; against a tenant holding under a written lease or contract or person holding under such tenant; against a tenant where the occupancy of the premises is incidental to the employment of a tenant; at the expiration or forfeiture of the term, without notice, if commenced within 7 days from the expiration or forfeiture of the term; and against a tenant at will, whose tenancy has been terminated as provided in section 6002. (emphasis supplied). The specific question presented is does section 6001 require that the nonpayment of rent by the defendant result in forfeiture of the term of the written lease before the plaintiffs can exercise the right to forcible entry and detainer? At initial glance, the various clauses within semicolons in section 6001 appear to be independent. So read, section 6001 *668 would provide a lessor the right to maintain a forcible entry and detainer action against a tenant holding under a written lease, without specifying the breach which triggers the right. The plaintiffs argue it can be logically inferred from section 6001 that the right to maintain a forcible entry and detainer action arises when a tenant holding under a written lease breaches a material, essential, and substantial term of the lease, such as the obligation to tender rent. Were we to believe that the various clauses within section 6001 are independent, we would be inclined to agree. The legislative history of section 6001, as well as common sense, however, dictates a contrary result. The forcible entry and detainer statute dates well back into the 1800s. Prior to amendment in 1933 the statute provided: Process of forcible entry and detainer may be maintained against a disseizor who has not acquired any claim by possession and improvement; against a tenant holding under a written lease or contract, or person holding under such tenant, at the expiration or forfeiture of the term, without notice, if commenced within seven days from the expiration or forfeiture of the term; and against a tenant at will, whose tenancy has been terminated as provided in the following section. R.S. ch. 108, § 1 (1930). Under this version of the statute, there was no question that the right to maintain a forcible entry and detainer action against one holding under a written lease arose only upon expiration or forfeiture of the term. As stated in Gilbert v. Gerrity, "The process is authorized in but four cases, viz: ... against a tenant occupying under a written lease which has terminated; against such tenant when the lease is forfeited...." Gilbert v. Gerrity, 108 Me. at 260, 80 A. at 705. Therefore, the plaintiffs' contention that forfeiture or expiration of the term is not a prerequisite to maintenance of a forcible entry and detainer action is only correct if the legislature, when amending the statute in 1933, intended to relieve the lessor of the obligation of alleging and proving expiration or forfeiture. Such does not appear to be the case. The legislative history surrounding the 1933 amendment gives no indication of an intent to change the statute in such manner. Rather, all that appears to have been intended was the addition of a fourth person against whom a forcible entry and detainer action could be maintained, i.e., "against a tenant where the occupancy of the premises is incidental to the employment of a tenant...." P.L.1933, ch. 177, § 1 (clause 3 in § 6001). The placement of the provision appears to reflect an intent to limit the right to maintain a forcible entry and detainer action against both a tenant holding under a written lease and a tenant occupying premises as an incidence of employment to situations in which the term has expired or been forfeited. The placement of the semi-colons appears to be the sole result of less than meticulous draftsmanship. Moreover, common sense convinces us that the legislature, in separating by semicolons the clauses "tenant holding under a written lease" and "at the expiration or forfeiture of the term," did not intend to remove the stated prerequisite to maintenance of a forcible entry and detainer action against a tenant holding under a written lease. Section 6001 begins with the phrase, "Process of forcible entry and detainer may be maintained against ..." and then lists four categories of individuals, each category within semicolons. The "after the expiration or forfeiture of a term" phrase is also within semicolons, and is placed between different categories of individuals to which section 6001 may apply. This phrase makes no sense if separated from the two clauses preceding it and read together only with the phrase "Process ... may be maintained against ...." Having determined section 6001 requires expiration or forfeiture of term as a condition to maintenance of a forcible *669 entry and detainer action against a tenant holding under a written lease,[4] we must now consider whether the defendant's failure to pay the rent due amounted to a forfeiture of the lease. At common law, mere nonpayment of rent did not, in the absence of express stipulation to the contrary, give rise to a right to terminate a lease.[5]See Beal v. Bass, 86 Me. 325, 335, 29 A. 1088, 1092 (1894); see also tenBraak v. Waffle Shops, Inc., 542 F.2d 919, 923 (4th Cir.1976); 3A Thompson on Real Property § 1335, at 606-07 (1981 Replacement); 49 Am.Jur.2d, Landlord and Tenant §§ 1020, 1029, at 991, 1000 (1970). Therefore, for the plaintiffs in the instant action to be entitled to possession of the premises leased to the defendant, they must establish either that the lease provided nonpayment of rent triggered a right to terminate, or the legislature has, by statute, made nonpayment of rent a ground for termination. See Beal v. Bass, 86 Me. at 335, 29 A. at 1092 (nonpayment of rent may constitute forfeiture where lease so provides). The lease provision upon which the District Court and the plaintiffs rely reads in full: Termination: Upon the expiration or other termination of the lease, the Lessee agrees to deliver up the premises and equipment and Lessee shall be responsible for any damage caused by having animals within the condominium. The District Court's finding that the effect of this provision was to terminate the lease upon nonpayment of rent is clearly erroneous. It is well-settled that a forfeiture provision in a lease is to be strictly construed against the party seeking to enforce it, and its enforcement is not to be favored. E.g., Brazeal v. Bokelman, 270 F.2d 943, 946 (8th Cir.1959); Clifford v. Androscoggin & Kennebec Railroad Co., 121 Me. 15, 19, 115 A. 511, 513 (1921); see also C Co. v. City of Westbrook, 269 A.2d 307 , 309 (Me. 1970). At best, paragraph 13 of the defendant's lease is ambiguous. The provision states only that the premises must be delivered on "termination" of the lease. It discusses termination no further. In light of the rule *670 of strict construction of forfeiture terms, this provision cannot be construed as implying that nonpayment of rent results in forfeiture. We regard the District Court's finding that the lease in question was terminable "according to law" similarly flawed. As previously discussed, at common law, nonpayment of rent did not by itself give rise to a right to terminate a lease. If such right is to be found, it must therefore originate from statute. The only statute arguably conferring a right to terminate a lease for reason of nonpayment of rent is 14 M.R. S.A. § 6002.[6] This statute is entitled "Tenancy at will; buildings on land of another," and delineates a general thirty-day written notice requirement for termination of a tenancy at will. The plaintiffs argue that subsection 1 of this statute gives rise to a right to terminate the defendant's written lease. In pertinent part, that subsection provides: *671 1. Causes for 7-day notice of termination of tenancy. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this chapter ... when the tenant is 14 days or more in arrears in payment of his rent, the tenancy may be terminated by the landlord by 7 days' notice in writing for that purpose given to the tenant .... If subsection 1 were applicable to all tenancies, then the lease the plaintiffs and the defendant entered has been terminated by the defendant's failure to pay the overdue rent after service of the seven-day notice to quit. Such termination would then allow a forcible entry and detainer action to be maintained under section 6001. However, a close examination of 14 M.R.S.A. § 6002, in its entirety, leads us to conclude subsection 1 is limited in scope to termination of tenancies at will. It is clear from reading the first paragraph of section 6002 that the statute is primarily directed to the notice requirements involved in terminating a tenancy at will. The first paragraph is followed by three numbered subsections, the first reducing the notice requirement from thirty to seven days upon the happening of certain specified events; the second addressing the contents of a termination notice pursuant to subsection 1; and the third providing that a breach of the warranty of habitability is an affirmative defense to an action brought by a landlord to terminate a rental agreement on the ground that the tenant is in arrears in the payment of rent. It would lead to an anomalous result to read subsection 1, which modifies the general thirty-day notice requirement contained in the first paragraph, as abrogating the common law rule that nonpayment of rent does not terminate a written lease. Subsection 1 makes no express reference to written leases. Were we to apply this subsection in the manner the plaintiffs advocate, we would be removing the subsection from its restrictive context and implying a legislative intent to change the common law. Although such change might be desirable, we will not interpret a statute as modifying the common law in the absence of clear and explicit language showing such modification or abrogation was intended. See, e.g., Atlantic Oceanic Kampgrounds, Inc. v. Camden National Bank, 473 A.2d 884 , 886 (Me.1984); Palmer v. Inhabitants of Town of Sumner, 133 Me. 337, 340, 177 A. 711, 712-13 (1935). Accordingly, we hold the District Court erred by finding the lease was terminable by reason of a provision therein and otherwise according to law.[7] The entry is: Judgment reversed. Remanded to the Superior Court with directions to remand to the District Court for entry of judgment denying writ of possession. All concurring.