Opinion ID: 2378348
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: the rent

Text: No contention is made that the computations on which Judge MacDaniel based his decision are in error on either the rent or the parking lot charges. Rather, the guarantors argue that the trial judge erred in not finding that the legal effect of the landlord's actions after abandonment of the premises constituted a termination of the lease agreement. They also raise the point that [t]he trial court erred in determining that the landlord, after taking over complete control of the premises, was under no duty to mitigate its damages and that the date of re-letting to a new tenant fixed the amount of damages due and owing as the amount of rent stipulated in the lease for the period the premises were unoccupied, contending that the uncontradicted evidence showed that the landlord refused to consider or allow any new tenants to take over, except for a substantial increase of rent, even though there were a number willing to take over on the same terms and conditions contained in the subject lease, and claiming also that the landlord did rent the premises for a substantial increase in rent, creating a sizeable surplus over the balance of the defaulting tenant's term, but with no credit being allowed. The contentions relative to mitigation of damages must fall by the wayside. First of all, the evidence does not bear out the contentions of the guarantors. More important, however, in this instance is the fact that in Maryland the majority rule prevails which is that a landlord is under no obligation to mitigate damages. Judge (now Chief Judge) Hammond said for the Court on this subject in McNally v. Moser, 210 Md. 127, 122 A.2d 555 (1956): It is generally held that a landlord, where a tenant has vacated the leased premises, is under no duty to seek a new tenant but may let the premises lie idle and recover the rent without taking steps to lessen the damages. See cases collected in the annotations in 40 A.L.R. 190 and 126 A.L.R. 1219. It is stated in the first annotation that in all but two jurisdictions the courts have adopted this view. This Court seems to have agreed. See Adreon v. Hawkins, 4 Harris & J. 319; Oldewurtel v. Wiesenfeld, 97 Md. 165, 176; Biggs v. Stueler, 93 Md. 100-111; and Gomprecht v. Dunleer Co., 164 Md. 653, 659. Id. at 141. See to this effect relative to the majority rule Annot., 21 A.L.R.3d 534, 541, 546 (1968). Re-entry by a landlord when a tenant has abandoned the premises does not relieve a tenant of his liability under his lease. Oldewurtel v. Wiesenfeld, 97 Md. 165, 176, 54 A. 969 (1903). The original lease was a contract. Therefore, there must be a contract in the nature of an assent by the landlord to the surrender of the premises by the tenant before it can be said that there has been a surrender of the premises. Biggs v. Stueler, 93 Md. 100, 112, 48 A. 727 (1901). 49 Am.Jur.2d Landlord and Tenant § 1095 (1970), states: Generally, a surrender of demised premises occurs only through the consent or agreement of the parties, evidenced either by an express agreement or by an unequivocal act inconsistent with the terms of the lease and with the relation of landlord and tenant, or by acts so inconsistent with the terms of the lease as to imply in law an agreement to surrender, and hence, an acceptance by the landlord is requisite. Whether there has been surrender and acceptance thereof is to be determined by the intention of the parties, and thus, it is usually a question of fact for the jury. Where the lessee contends that the surrender was accepted, he has the burden of showing that to be the fact. However, the agreement may be presumed and the surrender may arise by operation of law under certain circumstances. See Prevas v. Gottlieb, 229 Md. 188, 182 A.2d 489 (1962), there cited. In Joyce v. Bauman, 113 N.J.L. 438, 174 A. 693 (1934), the Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey said: It is only when the minds of the parties to a lease concur in the common intent of relinquishing the relation of landlord and tenant, and execute that intent by acts tantamount to a stipulation to put an end thereto, that a surrender by act and operation of law arises. O'Neil v. Pearse, 87 N.J.L. 382; affirmed, 88 Id. 733. Id. at 440. The letter from the landlord to the guarantors makes plain the intention of the landlord to hold the guarantors responsible. A re-rental for a term longer than that under the existing lease, as was done here, is regarded as a surrender by operation of law, since it is an act inconsistent with the landlord-tenant relationship. There is no liability for rent thereafter. Since there could be no liability thereafter upon the part of the tenant, it follows that the guarantors could not expect to receive a reduction of their liability upon the ground that thereafter the liability of the new tenant would be for a monthly rental greater than that in the lease to the original tenant. As a matter of fact, it could well develop that the landlord's experience with the new tenant might prove to be no more profitable than his experience with the insolvent tenant here, since the new tenant might also fail to perform. The important issue in this case is when the tenancy terminated. Impliedly, by his assessment for purposes of the judgment, the trial judge found that it terminated on the date the new tenancy began. The tenant's offer of surrender of the premises stood open and unrevoked until its acceptance at that time by the landlord. Until then there was no action by the landlord indicative of an intent to terminate the liability of the tenant under the lease. Accordingly, we perceive no error.