David Properties, Inc. v. Selk
151 So. 2d 334 (1963)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a landlord notifies a tenant under a fixed-term lease that continuing to occupy the premises after the lease term expires will be subject to a specified increased rent, the tenant's continued possession without protest constitutes an implied agreement to pay the higher rent.
Facts:
- On January 18, 1957, Louis G. Selk sold a 320-acre tract of land to David Properties, Inc., retaining a mortgage for the purchase price.
- After the sale, Selk continued to live in a small dwelling on the property.
- On October 20, 1959, the parties executed a formal written lease allowing Selk to occupy the house until midnight, December 31, 1959, at which point he was required to vacate.
- Selk did not vacate the property on December 31, 1959, and continued to reside there as a holdover tenant.
- On February 17, 1960, David Properties sent Selk a letter instructing him to vacate immediately and stating that his continued occupation would subject him to rent at the rate of $300 per month.
- On February 16, 1961, David Properties sent a second letter, reiterating the demand for immediate departure and that continued occupancy would be at the $300 monthly rate, and included an invoice for $3,600 for the prior 12 months.
- Selk acknowledged receiving both letters but did not reply, protest the rent increase, or vacate the property.
- Selk remained on the property until November 27, 1961, nearly 23 months after the lease expired.
Procedural Posture:
- Louis G. Selk (plaintiff) filed suit in the circuit court to foreclose a mortgage held on property owned by David Properties, Inc. (defendant).
- David Properties answered, admitting the mortgage debt but asserting a right to set off rent allegedly owed by Selk.
- David Properties also filed a counterclaim against Selk, demanding rent at the rate of $300 per month for the period Selk held over on the property.
- The chancellor (trial court judge) held a final hearing and entered a final decree in favor of Selk, dismissing David Properties' counterclaim for rent.
- David Properties (appellant) appealed the dismissal of its counterclaim to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District. Selk is the appellee.
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 who holds over after the expiration of a lease, and remains in possession after receiving the landlord's unequivocal demand for increased rent, become liable for the increased rent by failing to protest the demand?
Opinions:
Majority - Waybright, Associate Judge
Yes. A tenant who holds over after the expiration of a lease and continues in possession without protest after receiving the landlord's demand for an increased rent is deemed to have acquiesced to the new terms and is liable for the increased rent. When a tenant holds over, the landlord has several options, including treating the tenant as a trespasser and suing for damages, or waiving the trespass and treating the holdover as a tenancy under new terms. Here, David Properties elected to treat Selk as a tenant by demanding a specific rent. Selk's silence and continued possession created an implied contract to pay the rent demanded. The trial court erred by focusing on the property's reasonable rental value, as David Properties' claim was for rent under an implied contract, not for damages based on trespass. Furthermore, the court cannot rely on equitable considerations of sympathy for the tenant's age or perceived senility at the time of trial to override established legal principles, as there was no evidence of incompetence when the rent demands were made.
Analysis:
This case establishes for the first time in Florida the common law principle that a holdover tenant's silence and continued possession in the face of a landlord's demand for higher rent creates an implied contract to pay that rent. It critically distinguishes between an action for rent (based on contract) and an action for damages for wrongful holdover (based on trespass), clarifying that the measure of recovery depends on the landlord's chosen legal theory. This decision provides landlords a clear and potent remedy to unilaterally set the terms for a holdover tenancy, shifting the burden to the tenant to either vacate or explicitly reject the new terms.
Unlock the full brief for David Properties, Inc. v. Selk