Commonwealth Building Corp. v. Hirschfield
30 N.E.2d 790, 307 Ill. App. 533, 1940 Ill. App. LEXIS 737 (1940)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A tenant who holds over for a brief and unavoidable period after the expiration of a lease, while acting in good faith to vacate the premises, does not grant the landlord the right to unilaterally elect to create a new year-long tenancy, especially when the lease itself provides a specific remedy for holding over.
Facts:
- The defendant's written lease for an apartment with the plaintiff was set to expire on September 30, 1938.
- The lease contained a clause stipulating that if the defendant held over, he would be liable for double rent for the period of his continued occupancy.
- Approximately two months before the lease expiration, the defendant notified the plaintiff by registered mail of his intent to vacate.
- The defendant hired a moving company and began the process of moving out on September 28, continuing through September 30.
- By midnight on September 30, most of the defendant's belongings had been removed, but some items, including carpets and bedroom furniture, remained.
- The defendant's family and servants slept in the apartment on the night of September 30 and removed the remaining items the following morning, October 1.
- At approximately 10 a.m. on October 1, the plaintiff's agent served the defendant with a notice stating that the plaintiff had elected to treat him as a holdover tenant for another full year.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff sued defendant for $3,300 in rent in the trial court.
- A jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $1,100.
- Both parties filed motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, which the trial court denied.
- The defendant then filed a motion for a new trial, which the trial court allowed.
- The plaintiff appealed the trial court's order granting a new trial to the intermediate appellate court.
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 failure to completely vacate an apartment by midnight on the last day of the lease, when the tenant is actively and in good faith moving out, grant the landlord the right to elect to treat the tenant as a holdover for another full year?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Matchett
No. A landlord may not elect to treat a tenant as a holdover for a new year-long term when the tenant's holdover is for a few hours, is not voluntary, and occurs while the tenant is acting in good faith to vacate. The court reasoned that the holdover tenancy rule is based on either the tenant's implied intent to create a new tenancy or a quasi-contractual obligation imposed by law. Here, every action by the defendant indicated an intent to vacate, negating any inference of a voluntary agreement to renew. Furthermore, imposing a new tenancy as a matter of law would be unjust, as the tenant was vacating with reasonable speed. Most importantly, the lease itself contained a provision for this exact contingency, specifying that the penalty would be double rent for the actual time of occupancy. This contractual remedy preempts the landlord's common law option to impose a full year's rent, which the court views as a highly penal claim.
Concurring - Mr. Presiding Justice O’Connor
No. The author agreed with the majority's reasoning and result but added that the plaintiff's claim for $3,300 shocks the conscience of the court and is wholly without merit. The court should take judicial notice of the fact that moving on common expiration dates like September 30 is physically difficult, and delays are common. The 'rule of reason' must apply, and not every slight dereliction or minor delay should give rise to a significant cause of action with such a harsh penalty.
Analysis:
This decision significantly tempers the traditionally strict common law rule regarding holdover tenants. It moves away from an automatic, punitive application by introducing considerations of the tenant's intent, good faith, and the reasonableness of the delay. The case establishes that a tenant's demonstrable intent to vacate can overcome the presumption of a new tenancy. Critically, it gives precedence to specific contractual remedies for holding over (e.g., a double rent clause) over the landlord's common law right to elect a full-term renewal, thereby limiting the landlord's ability to impose a disproportionately harsh penalty on a tenant for a minor, unintentional holdover.
