Opinion ID: 2159727
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Abandonment Instruction

Text: Dr. Jones' final argument is premised on his misunderstanding of the distinction between real property law, specifically landlord-tenant law, and personal property law. He maintains that the trial court incorrectly instructed the jury on the law of abandonment and that the jury should instead have been instructed in the following language from one of our cases: Abandoned property is that to which the owner has voluntarily relinquished all right, title, claim, and possession, with the intention of terminating his ownership, but without vesting it in any other person and with the intention of not reclaiming future possession or resuming its ownership, possession or enjoyment. Kearns v. McNeill Bros. Moving & Storage Co., 509 A.2d 1132, 1136 (D.C.1986) (citation omitted). The language which Dr. Jones cites is a correct statement of the law, but it relates only to personal property and is not applicable here. Dr. Jones describes his defense as an assertion that the property (the house) had been rented to Cain's wife and that when she separated from Cain, he abandoned the unit. In other words, his defense was that Mr. Cain abandoned the house, not that he abandoned the property left in the house. In landlord-tenant law, however, abandonment is aptly described as an anticipatory breach of the lease. In the District of Columbia, [a]n abandonment [of leased premises] occurs when a tenant leaves the premises vacant with the avowed intention not to be bound by his lease. Simpson v. Lee, 499 A.2d 889, 894 (D.C.1985). The court's instruction in this case, which was nearly identical to this language from Simpson, was entirely correct and was consistent with Jones' defense. We find no error.