Source: http://www.deltaalpha.co.uk/html/Property_Dictionary2.php?id=1
Timestamp: 2019-08-18 01:34:52
Document Index: 613424839

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 124', 'EWCA ', '§ 504', '§ 124', '§ 17', '§ 4', '§ 2', '§ 1951']

2. The voluntary relinquishment or surrender of property, or an interest in property, without any intention of resuming enjoyment or possession, or of vesting it in anyone else. The disclaiming of a right, expressly or by implication, without leaving any evidence of an intention to reclaim that right. Thus, abandonment requires two elements, an intention to relinquish a right or property and the act by which the intention is carried into effect (Roebuck v. Mecosta County Road Comm'n, 59 Mich App 128, 229 NW.2d 343, 345-6 (1975)). Abandonment is a voluntary and willful act and may thus be distinguished from eviction and forfeiture, either of which can arise as a result of an illegal act or omission.
Simply not using an easement does not of itself constitute abandonment; mere non-user is not sufficient (Swan v Sinclair [1924] 1 Ch 254, 266, aff'd [1925] AC 227 (HL); CDC2020 plc v Ferreira [2005] 3 EGLR 15; First National Bank of Boston v. Konner, 373 Mass 463; 367 NE.2d 1174 (1977); Pendecar Associates, Inc. v. Glasgow Trust, 446 A.2d 1097 (Del 1982)—non-use for 170 years!). There must be a clear intention to abandon, or an overt act that is repugnant to the right of user. "Abandonment of an easement or a profit à prendre can only &helip; be treated as having taken place where the person entitled to it has demonstrated a fixed intention never at any time thereafter to assert a right himself to attempt to transmit it to anyone else", Tehidy Minerals Ltd v Norman [1971] 2 QB 528, [1971] 2 All ER 475 (CA) (Zimmerman v. Young, 74 Cal App.2d 623, 169 P.2d 37 (1946); Ellis v. Brown, 177 F.2d 677 (6th Cir. Ky 1949); Gabel v. Cambruzzi, 532 Pa 584, 616 A.2d 1364, 1367 (1992); Pekarek v. Votow, 216 AD.2d 829, 628 NYS.2d 859 (1995); Presault v. United States, 100 F.3d 1525 (Fed. Cir. 1996)—taking up of railroad line demonstrated an intention to abandon; 28A C.J.S., Easements (St. Paul, MN), §§ 124–6). For example, keeping a doorway bricked up for a number of years may not of itself amount to sufficient indication of an intention not to reopen it, but removing a wall that contained a window, and then waiting many years before rebuilding it, shows that the beneficiary does not need the right to the light and demonstrates an intention to abandon the need for the right of light ("em>Cook v Bath Corp'n (1868) LR 6 Eq 177, 18 LT 123; Williams v Underwood (1983) 45 P & CR 235, 256; Williams v Sandy Lane (Chester) Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 1738, [2007] 07 EG 144, 154 (CA); The American Law Institute, Restatement of Property (Servitudes) (St. Paul, MN: 1944), § 504; Ernst v. Keniry, 19 AD.2d 938, 244 NYS.2d 239 (1963); Mueller v. Hoblyn, 887 P.2d 500, 505 (Wyo 1994); Anno: 98 ALR 1291: Loss of Easement).
A lease cannot be abandoned unilaterally during its term (Colles v Evanson (1865) 19 CB (NS) 372, 19 Eng Rep 831; In Gruman v. Investors Diversified Services, Inc., 247 Minn 502, 78 NW.2d 377, 380 (1956); K & C Associates v. Airborne Freight Corp., 20 Wash App 653, 581 P.2d 1082, 1084 (1978)). However, if a tenant leaves the premises that are leased to him empty, or demonstrates a manifest intention not to occupy the premises, and then permits the landlord to re-enter and take absolute and unqualified possession of the premises, the tenancy may be said to have been abandoned; or, more precisely, the tenant has offered, and the landlord has accepted a surrender of the possession. There may be said to be a 'surrender by operation of law' (Phene v Popplewell (1862) 12 CB (NS) 334, 342, 142 Eng Rep 1171; Boyer v Warby [1953] 1 QB 234, 244–55 (CA); tenBraak v. Waffle Shops, Inc., 542 F.2d 919, 924 (4th Cir. Va 1976); Atkinson v. Rosenthal, 598 NE.2d 666, 668 (Mass App Ct 1992); 51C C.J.S., L & T, § 124; 2 Powell on Real Property, § 17.05[1], 17-74). Alternatively, there may be a form of constructive eviction where the landlord takes an action that prevents the tenant's further use of the premises.
n the US, there is a considerable difference of opinion as to whether a landlord has a duty to mitigate the tenant's loss by taking steps to relet the premises after the tenant has abandoned them. In some jurisdictions, if a tenant abandons the demised premises before the end of a term and the landlord re-enters, the landlord is obliged to make reasonable efforts to relet the premises in order to minimize any claim that he may have against the tenant for past rent due (e.g. Snyder v. Ambrose, 203 Ill Dec 319, 266 Ill App.3d 163, 639 NE.2d 639, 640 (1994)). As a corollary, some jurisdictions take the view that reletting the premises amounts to accepting a surrender of the lease by the landlord, relieving the tenant of all further liability for payment of rent (e.g. Mesilla Valley Mall Co. v. Crown Industries, 111 NM 663, 808 P.2d 633 (1991)). Whereas other jurisdictions take the view that even if the premises are relet, the tenant remains liable for any loss of rental value suffered by the landlord during the remaining term of the lease (Yates v. Reid, 36 Cal.2d 383, 224 P.2d 8 (1950); Anno: 21 ALR3d 534: Damages— Mitigation by Landlord (1968); Lefrak v. Lambert, 93 Misc.2d 632, 403 NYS.2d 397 (1978); Boise Joint Venture v. Moore, 106 Or App 83, 806 P.2d (1990); Austin Hill v. Palisades Plaza, Inc., 948 SW.2d 293, 295 n. 1 (Tex 1997)—note 1 lists cases from 42 states and District of Columbia that have recognized a landlord's duty to mitigate damages in at least some situations). The Uniform Residential Landlord and Tenant Act (URLTA), which has been adopted by several states, provides that if the tenant abandons a dwelling unit, the landlord shall "make reasonable efforts to let it at a fair rental" § 4.203(c). The Model Residential Landlord-Tenant Code, § 2-308(4) contains a similar position. In California, if a tenant vacates premises the landlord has a right to declare abandonment, either by a judicial process or by notice after a period of non-payment of rent (Cal CC, § 1951.3).
In Australia, opinion is also divided, with an increasing view that a lease is like any other contract and a landlord must seek to mitigate his loss by seeking another tenant ( (1989) 52 SASR 90, 100 (Aus); Cf. Tall-Bennett & Co Pty Ltd v Sadot Holdings Pty Ltd (1988) 4 BPR 9522 (NSW)).
In the case of goods left on premises by a tenant after vacating premises, the landlord cannot claim or dispose of the goods unless the owner has clearly abandoned the goods and demonstrated that he has relinquished any claim threto (Arenas Limited v Waterfield [2010] All ER 67, [2010] EWHC 115; ??). In English law, there is a statutory procedure to be followed to dispose of such goods, otherwise the landlord, or his bailee, may be guilty of (Tort (Interference with Goods) Act 1977, s. 1). Cf. laches, repudiation. See also escheat, estoppel, frustration, lapsed land (US), release, res nullius.