Court Opinion

ID: 9687833
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 16:51:05.263472+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:32.235037
License: Public Domain

Newton, j.,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. Under existing Nebraska law, a landlord cannot evict a tenant by force or artifice even though the landlord is entitled to possession. See, Anderson v. Carlson, 86 Neb. 126, 125 N. W. 157; Miller v. Maust, 128 Neb. 453, 259 N. W. 181; Barnes v. Davitt, 160 Neb. 595, 71 N. W. 2d 107. These are all cases in forcible entry and detainer where the only issue was the right of possession. In such cases damages were not an issue. Furthermore, in' none of these cases was a lease involved which contained a provision for reentry on breach. These cases represent an exercise in futility. In each instance the tenant, who wrongfully held possession in the first place, was returned to possession. This simply. meant- that the landlord would have to bring a second action in forcible entry, and detainer to obtain ■ possession from a defaulting tenant or tres*749passer. I believe it inadvisable to extend our rule to cases where the lease contract authorizes reentry on breach or termination of the lease. I favor following the weight of authority as outlined in Annotation, 6 A. L. R. 3d 194.
The right of a landlord to reenter for default in payment of rent or a wrongful holding over should be permitted where the lease provides for reentry and it can be accomplished without violence. This is similar to the right of a conditional sale vendor to take possession of the security on default by peaceful means. See § 9-503, U. C. C.
How can a rule such as is advocated in the majority opinion be justified? It is said that it prevents violence and therefore is required by public policy. This is untrue as the rule I have proposed, like that dealing with the repossession of a conditional sales contract security interest, authorizes only peaceful repossession. Contractual rights should not be nullified without good reason.
On the question of whether a party not entitled to possession of realty who is ejected by force or artifice may recover damages, there is a split in the authorities. See Annotation, 6 A. L. R. 3d 210 and 214. There is not a single Nebraska case permitting such recovery. The decisions seem to indicate approval of Ish v. Marsh, 1 Neb. (Unoff.) 864, 96 N. W. 58, which approved an instruction that one not entitled to possession cannot recover damages when forcibly ejected except in the event due care was not used in removing his property.
Shutt v. Lockner, 77 Neb. 397, 109 N. W. 383, holds that a tenant wrongfully evicted may recover the- rental value of the property for the unexpired term, less the amount of rent reserved by the lease. To the same effect is Jarman v. Sexton, 130 Neb. 453, 264 N. W. 305, but adds that in a proper case special damages may be awarded. Kenney v. Braun, 113 Neb. 12, 201 N. W. *750641, follows the same rule and permits recovery of profits lost from the operation of a theatre. The same rules are followed in Dinkel v. Hagedorn, 156 Neb. 419, 56 N. W. 2d 464. In none of these cases was the party evicted wrongfully in possession as a trespasser or defaulting tenant.
In the absence of a willful destruction of the evicted party’s property or a physical assault, I would deny recovery. This is particularly true in cases where the lease provides that the landlord shall have a lien on the tenant’s property on the demised premises to secure accrued rentals. In 49 Am. Jur. 2d, Landlord and Tenant, § 677, p. 642, it is stated: “It is competent for the parties to a lease to stipulate that the landlord shall have a lien on the crops or the personal property of the tenant which may be brought upon the leased premises, which, even if invalid at common law, will be given effect in equity.”