Arbenz v. Exley, Watkins & Co.

West Virginia Supreme Court
1905 W. Va. LEXIS 66, 50 S.E. 813, 57 W. Va. 580 (1905)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

To terminate a tenancy from year-to-year, a tenant must provide written notice that explicitly states a future date of termination corresponding with the end of the current rental year; a notice stating only that the tenant has already vacated or surrendered the premises is legally insufficient.

Facts:

Arbenz (landlord) and Exley, Watkins & Co. (tenants) signed a written lease for a brick building in Wheeling for a term of five years and three months, starting January 1, 1896.
The written lease was not under seal, which under state law converted the intended term into a tenancy from year-to-year.
The tenants took possession and paid monthly rent for several years.
On September 15, 1898, a fire totally destroyed the leased building.
The tenants paid rent for September and October 1898.
On October 31, 1898, the tenants sent a letter to Arbenz stating: 'We beg to advise that we have vacated the premises... and hereby surrender possession of same.'
The tenants physically vacated the property and stopped paying rent.
Arbenz refused to accept the surrender and sought rent for subsequent years.

Procedural Posture:

Arbenz sued the tenants in the Circuit Court of Ohio County for rent owed from November 1899 to December 1902.
The trial court ruled that the tenancy ended on December 31, 1899, limiting the verdict for Arbenz to only two months of rent ($148.15).
Arbenz appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, seeking the full amount of rent.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a tenant's written letter stating that they have already vacated and surrendered the premises constitute valid legal notice to terminate a tenancy from year-to-year under common law?

Opinions:

Majority - Brannon

No, the letter was not a valid notice to quit because it failed to specify a future termination date. The court reasoned that under common law, a notice to quit must look to the future and explicitly designate the time when the tenancy will end, typically coinciding with the end of the rental year. The letter provided by the tenants merely stated a past fact (that they had vacated) and a present intent (surrender), rather than a future notice of termination. The court emphasized that while the statute requires written notice three months prior to the end of the year, it does not remove the common law requirement that the notice must fix the time of termination with reasonable certainty. The court held that knowledge by the landlord that the tenant has abandoned the property is not a substitute for formal legal notice. Therefore, despite the hardship of paying rent on a destroyed building, the tenancy continued because the 'notice' was technically defective.

Analysis:

This case is a classic example of strict formalism in property law. The court refused to apply equitable principles or common sense (the landlord clearly knew the tenants were leaving a burned-down building) in favor of rigid adherence to common law technicalities regarding notice. It establishes that a 'Notice to Quit' is a term of art requiring specific future-looking language. For law students, this highlights the danger of defective notice in periodic tenancies: a tenant can remain liable for rent indefinitely if they fail to strictly follow the notice requirements, even if they have physically abandoned the property.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Arbenz v. Exley, Watkins & Co. (1905)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"