Garner v. Gerrish, Court of Appeals of NY (1984)
Parties: Appellant is executor of estate of decedent Donovan; Appellee is tenant Cause of action/remedy sought: The following is a legal action for ejectment. Procedural History: County court granted SJ to petitioner on grounds that the lease was uncertain, as there was no dates of continuance or termination. Trial and appellate courts held that the lease created a tenancy at will (month-tomonth), permitting the current landlord to evict the tenant. This court grants tenant's motion for leave to appeal and reverses. Facts: 1977 Donovan owned the house April 14, 1977 Donovan executes a lease with DF, on a preprinted form (no counsel present). Donovan filled in the blanks on the form, listing the term of the lease as "for quiet enjoyment" from May 1977 to end " Gerrish has the privilege of termination this agreement at a date of his own choice". DF took possession. November 1981 - Donovan dies. PL, executor of Donovan's estate, orders DF to quit the premises. DF refuses, PL files this suit. Issue(s): Under NY property law, does a lease which grants the tenant the right to terminate the agreement at a date of his choice create a determinable life tenancy on behalf of the tenant or does it merely establish a tenancy at will? Holding: The lease expressly and unambiguously grants to the tenant the right to terminate, and does not reserve to the landlord a similar right. Court's Rationale/Reasoning: At common law, the right for the landlord to terminate the lease would clearly have been implied. Livery of seisin was still required for a life tenancy, because it created a fee interest. If there was no livery, then a tenancy at will was created, hence the landlord could terminate at will also. Rejected this common law rule, preferring to literally interpret the terms written in the lease, which made mention only of the tenants rights to terminate the lease. Hence, a life tenancy terminable at the will of the tenant was created. This is what is expressly and unambiguously written in the lease. Rule: When a person leases property to the other with the terminology "...as long as" is indicative of a determinable life tenancy, and can only be terminated at the will of the grantee or at the grantee's death.
Did court avoid issues?: No. Dicta: The court is leaving the old common law rule that when parties create an "at will" lease, the intent to do so should run to both parties, as it frustrates the intent of the parties.
Crechale & Polles, Inc. v. Smith, Supreme Court of MS (1974)
Parties: PL - Appellant - Chrechale - wants DF to pay 5 years rent as a holdover tenant DF - Appellee - paid his rent on a monthly basis after the lease term, thereby creating a tenancy at will. Cause of action/remedy sought: The following is an equitable action for specific performance Procedural History: Trial court awarded complainant damages and pay rent for a leasehold premises, in addition to attorney's fees. PL brought this suit to increase the judgment against DF. This court affirms the trial court. Facts: 2-5-64 PL enters into lease agreement with Smith for five years, from 2-7-64 through 2-6-69 (lease was up at this time). 12-68 or 1-69 alleged conversation -Smith meets with PL and attempts to extend the lease on a month to month basis until his new building is ready. PL states he told DF no. DF maintains he verbally OK'd a month to month, but refused to sign an agreement from DF's attorney. 2-4-69 DF send letter to PL, confirming the oral agreement-tenant sends letter of confirmation of agreement 2-6-69 PL sends letter telling DF to quit the premises, or face double rent as a holdover - LL orders tenant to quit the premises 3-3-69 DF pays his monthly rent, which PL accepts and cashes- T handed over check which LL accepted 4-6-69 DF sends PL check marked final payment, which PL does not accept- T tendered ck for March/April, LL rejected
4-7-69 DF sends PL telegram that he is tendering the premises for the purpose of the lessor's inventory, noting that PL had refused to do so by phone earlier that day- T sends telegram tendering premises 4-19-69 P's attorney rights to DF, stating that due to the holdover, they are considering this a renewal of the lease for 5 more years, ending 2-6-74- LL's atty sends letter asserting another term 4-24-69 DF's check again rejected by PL - T tenders a ck which LL rejects 4-29-69 another letter from PL attorney that the holdover was a renewal- LL attorney seeks lease 5-15-70 letter from LL to tenant for the past due rent 5-27-70 DF attorney tendered the keys to PL. Issue(s): Under MS property law, did the holdover create a renewal of the lease when PL cashed the first rent check appellee sent in to him? Holding: Yes. Acts as such manifested an acceptance of the month to month agreement. Court's Rationale/Reasoning: PL was not responsible for the rent as a holdover tenant. When DF remained in the premises after the lease expired, PL had a choice to treat him as either a trespasser and evict him, or treat him as a tenant. After having elected not to accept DF as tenants, PL can not at a later date, after failing to pursue his remedy of eviction, change his election and hold them for a new term. His election once exercised is binding on the tenant and the landlord. Possible effects: Landlords will be bound by their first election in dealing with tenants who remain after their lease expires. Rule: Once a landlord elects to treat a tenant as a trespasser and refuses to extend a lease on a month to month basis, fails to pursue his remedy of ejecting the tenant, and accepts monthly checks for rent due, he in effect agrees to the extension of the lease on a month to month basis. Had one of two options: eviction or acceptance & create new tenancy. Did court avoid issues?: Doesn't the landlord have a duty to release the property to minimize his losses.