Opinion ID: 1443730
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The premises.

Text: During trial, EI stipulated to forgo its claim for prospective damages under the oral premises lease. Therefore, the only issue on appeal with respect to that lease is whether the district court erred when it failed to award EI damages for unpaid rent for the months of February, March, and the period of DTE/BTE's occupancy during April 1992. In this respect, EI argues that DTE/BTE's conduct in occupying the premises and paying rent on a monthly basis created a month-to-month tenancy that supported EI's claims for unpaid rents. We agree. NRS 118A.210 provides, in relevant part: 2. Unless the rental agreement establishes a definite term, the tenancy is from week to week in the case of a tenant who pays weekly rent and in all other cases the tenancy is from month to month. 3. In the absence of an agreement, either written or oral: (a) Rent is payable at the beginning of the tenancy; and (b) Rent for the use and occupancy of a dwelling is the fair rental value for the use and occupancy. Despite the lack of an enforceable premises lease, DTE/BTE was obligated to pay rent for the use and occupancy of EI's office space.