Opinion ID: 1386980
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Holdover Rent:

Text: Courts generally agree that whether the tenant's failure to repair amounts to a holdover is a question of fact to be decided in light of the surrounding circumstances. See, e.g., Caserta v. Action for Bridgeport Community, 34 Conn. Supp. 561, 377 A.2d 856 (1976) (leaving personal property on the premises may constitute holding over; this is a question of fact for the trial court); Comedy v. Vito, 492 A.2d 276 (D.C.App. 1985) (small amount of property left on premises was not a holdover); Hoopes v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America, 48 Ill. App.3d 146, 6 Ill.Dec. 167, 362 N.E.2d 802 (1977) (keeping the key and leaving the lights on was not a holdover); Huff v. Northern Pacific Ry. Co., 38 Wash.2d 103, 228 P.2d 121 (1951) (whether leaving property on the premises amounts to a holdover is a question of fact). These cases show that a trial court may impose a holdover tenancy if the vacating tenant leaves the premises with substantial damage or in an unusable condition. The Trust asserted and the trial court believed that the damage to the building was extensive. The trial court based its finding on the fact that pictures of the warehouse depicted a need for numerous repairs. However, the actual cost of repairs only amounted to about $11,000.00, a figure which equaled less than one-fourth of one month's rent, or one-fourth of the security deposit. In spite of how the warehouse may have appeared, these figures show that the damage was not extensive enough so that operation of law should create a holdover. Also, the Trust made no showing that it cared when Consumers vacated, or that it would have made efforts to relet the warehouse if it had been in top condition. Consumers had vacated the warehouse many months before expiration of the lease and had tried to convince the Trust to terminate the lease early. The Trust refused this request, but never informed Consumers that it would impose a holdover if the warehouse needed repairs. In addition, the Trust dragged its feet in informing Consumers what repairs it would require, by waiting until just before expiration of the lease to deliver the list of necessary repairs. The Trust asserts that Consumers held over because: (1) Consumers remained in possession of the premises to oversee repairs after expiration of the lease term, (2) Consumers continued to pay the utility bill for the premises, and (3) Consumers neglected to turn over the core-pulling keys, denying the Trust access to three offices in the building. None of these reasons constitutes sufficient grounds to impose a holdover. Consumers' acts of overseeing construction and paying the utility bill show that it took its obligation to repair seriously. These acts should not be used against it to show that it did not relinquish possession. Also, the cases listed above all agree that the failure to return keys does not constitute a holdover. If the Trust had made some showing that it encouraged Consumers to have the premises repaired upon the expiration date or that it completed its obligation to make a list of necessary repairs in a timely fashion, then we would be more inclined to uphold the imposition of a holdover tenancy. However, the Trust concedes that if Consumers had abandoned the premises and left the repairs for the Trust to complete, there would be no holdover. Under these circumstances, Consumers should not be penalized for merely completing an obligation. In addition, the Trust makes no showing that it could have relet the premises had Consumers completed the repairs on time. We do not hold that a landlord's failure to produce a prospective tenant negates the possibility of a holdover, for poor conditions of the property may scare away such prospects, and a landlord should not be forced to lose income because of a prior tenant's failure to repair. However, a landlord must show some effort to get the old tenant out and a new tenant in before operation of law will impose a holdover tenancy.