Corwin v. Hamilton
317 P.2d 139, 154 Cal. App. 2d 829, 1957 Cal. App. LEXIS 1707 (1957)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A landlord does not constructively evict a tenant by revoking access to amenities not mentioned in the written lease, such as an adjacent parking lot or a secondary entrance, when these are considered mere conveniences and not essential to the use of the leased premises. A landlord may also take protective measures to secure an abandoned property without such actions constituting an acceptance of the tenant's surrender of the lease.
Facts:
- Appellants, Paul J. Hamilton and another (Hamilton), leased three office rooms in the Corwin Building from respondents (Corwin) for a five-year term under a written lease.
- The lease described only the three rooms and did not mention any rights to use an adjacent vacant lot for parking or the building's back door.
- For a time, Hamilton and other tenants had used the unimproved vacant lot for parking and had used the building's back door.
- Hamilton, a dentist, decided to move his practice to a new building after two doctors who referred him patients moved their offices from the Corwin Building.
- In early January 1955, Hamilton removed all possessions from the leased rooms and stopped paying rent.
- After finding the vacated rooms open and the water on during cold weather, Corwin turned off the water, placed a light bar across the rear door, and put a chain across the entrance to the vacant lot to prevent damage and vandalism.
- Corwin padlocked the front door leading to the floor but provided a key to Hamilton.
- Corwin sent multiple written notices to Hamilton stating that these actions were purely for protective purposes and did not constitute an acceptance of Hamilton's surrender of the lease.
Procedural Posture:
- Respondents, Corwin, filed a lawsuit against appellants, Hamilton, in the trial court, seeking recovery of unpaid rent.
- Hamilton filed an answer asserting the affirmative defenses of constructive eviction and acceptance of surrender.
- The trial court found in favor of Corwin, ruling that there was no constructive eviction or acceptance of surrender, and entered a judgment against Hamilton for the accrued rent.
- Hamilton, the lessee, appealed the trial court's judgment to the District Court of Appeal.
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 landlord constructively evict a tenant or accept the surrender of a lease by barricading a back door and an adjacent, unimproved parking lot, neither of which were mentioned in the written lease, after the tenant has already vacated the premises?
Opinions:
Majority - Van Dyke, P. J.
No, a landlord's actions in barricading a back door and a parking lot not included in the lease do not constitute a constructive eviction or an acceptance of surrender. The court reasoned that the use of the adjacent lot and the back door were not essential rights included in the lease but were 'mere conveniences' that the landlord was free to revoke. Since the lease did not grant any rights to these areas, the landlord could have built on the lot or closed the door at any time without breaching the lease. Therefore, blocking access did not amount to a constructive eviction. Furthermore, the landlord's actions in securing the property after Hamilton moved out were reasonable steps taken to protect the property from damage and vandalism. The landlord's intent, evidenced by written notices to the tenant, was not to retake possession but to preserve the premises while holding the tenant to the lease, thus there was no acceptance of surrender.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the legal distinction between essential appurtenances to a leasehold, which are implicitly included, and 'mere conveniences,' which are not. The decision establishes that for a landlord's action to rise to the level of constructive eviction, it must interfere with a right that is part of the lease itself, not a revocable, permissive use. It also reinforces the principle that a landlord's intent is paramount in determining whether actions taken on an abandoned property constitute an acceptance of surrender. By showing that landlords can take reasonable protective measures without terminating the lease, the ruling provides a safe harbor for property owners, provided they clearly communicate their intentions to the tenant.
