Harts v. Arnold Bros.
318 Ill. 416, 149 N.E. 420 (1925)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a lease contains a clause requiring the tenant to restore the premises to their original condition at the termination of the lease, the landlord cannot recover the cost of restoration for alterations made during the lease term. The proper measure of damages during the term is the diminution in the market value of the landlord's reversionary interest.
Facts:
- A landlord owned two old buildings, previously a mill and a stable.
- The landlord leased both buildings to a corporate tenant under a single five-year lease that began on May 1, 1920.
- The lease contained a clause stating the tenant 'agrees to restore the said premises at the termination of this lease to their original condition as required.'
- During the lease term, the tenant made several alterations to the buildings, including changes to convert one into a soap factory.
- The landlord had not expended any money to repair the alterations made by the tenant.
- While the lease term was still ongoing, the landlord initiated a lawsuit against the tenant for waste.
Procedural Posture:
- The landlord filed a bill in the superior court of Cook County (a court of first instance) against the tenant, seeking an injunction and an accounting for waste.
- The court referred the case to a master in chancery, who found the tenant liable for $1,328.28, measuring damages by the cost of restoring the premises.
- The tenant filed objections, which were heard as exceptions by the chancellor of the superior court.
- The chancellor sustained the tenant's objections, held the proper measure of damages was the decrease in market value, and awarded the landlord only nominal damages of $5 because no evidence of such a decrease was offered.
- The landlord (as appellant) appealed to the Appellate Court.
- The Appellate Court reversed the superior court, holding that the cost of restoration was the correct measure of damages.
- The tenant (as plaintiff in error) appealed the Appellate Court's decision to the state's highest 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:
When a lease requires a tenant to restore the premises at the end of the term, is the proper measure of damages for a landlord's lawsuit for waste during the lease term the cost of restoration or the decrease in the property's market value?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Stone
No. The proper measure of damages during the term is the decrease in the property's market value, not the cost of restoration. The lease's specific language, which obligates the tenant to restore the premises at the termination of the lease, must be interpreted as an agreement that defers the remedy of restoration costs until the lease ends. This clause effectively gives the tenant permission to make alterations on the condition that they will be corrected later if the landlord elects. Therefore, during the ongoing tenancy, the landlord is not entitled to recover for any damage except that resulting to the reversion. The damage to the reversion is measured by the difference between the property's market value before and after the alterations. Since the landlord offered no evidence of a decrease in market value, only nominal damages are appropriate.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a critical distinction in remedies for waste based on the presence of a restoration clause in a lease. It clarifies that such a clause postpones the landlord's right to seek restoration costs until the lease terminates, limiting the landlord's recourse during the term to proving damage to the reversion. This precedent significantly impacts landlord-tenant litigation by raising the evidentiary bar for landlords who sue for waste mid-lease; proving a decrease in market value is often more difficult than simply obtaining repair estimates. The ruling underscores the importance of precise contract drafting, as the tenant's future obligation to restore circumscribed the landlord's present remedies.
Unlock the full brief for Harts v. Arnold Bros.