O'BRIEN v. Black
648 A.2d 1374, 162 Vt. 448, 1994 Vt. LEXIS 89 (1994)
Rule of Law:
A commercial landlord has a duty to make reasonable efforts to mitigate its damages when its tenant abandons the leased property, and this duty arises as soon as the landlord has notice of the tenant’s abandonment, even if the lease has not been formally terminated.
Facts:
- Pickwick & Perkins, Ltd. entered into a five-year commercial lease with Burlington Square Mall, which was scheduled to end on November 1, 1991.
- In late January 1990, Pickwick & Perkins, Ltd. abandoned the leased premises in the Burlington Square Mall and ceased paying rent.
- Burlington Square Mall sent Pickwick & Perkins, Ltd. a notice of default, warning that failure to cure could result in the mall exercising its option to terminate the lease.
- Shortly after the abandonment, Burlington Square Mall began searching for a replacement tenant.
- In February 1990, Vivien Ginsberg, an existing tenant in the Mall, approached Burlington Square Mall about expanding her business into the space vacated by Pickwick & Perkins, Ltd.
- Burlington Square Mall refused to discuss the possibility of renting the space with Ms. Ginsberg, falsely informing her that the space had already been relet to another tenant.
- On August 10, 1990, Burlington Square Mall successfully leased the space to a new tenant, which was part of a national chain, at a substantially increased rent.
Procedural Posture:
- Burlington Square Mall brought an action in the superior court (trial court) against Pickwick & Perkins, Ltd. to recover rents and expenses under the lease.
- The superior court (trial court) entered judgment in favor of Pickwick & Perkins, Ltd., finding that Burlington Square Mall had a duty to mitigate damages and failed to do so.
- Burlington Square Mall appealed the superior court's judgment to the Vermont Supreme Court, arguing that no duty to mitigate existed prior to lease termination and that the finding of failure to mitigate was clearly erroneous; Burlington Square Mall was the appellant, and Pickwick & Perkins, Ltd. was 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 commercial landlord have an affirmative duty to make reasonable efforts to mitigate its damages when a tenant abandons the leased premises but before the lease is formally terminated?
Opinions:
Majority - Johnson, J.
Yes, a commercial landlord has a duty to make reasonable efforts to mitigate its damages when a tenant abandons the leased property, even if the lease has not been formally terminated. The Court adopted the modern trend in landlord-tenant law, recognizing a commercial lease as fundamentally a contract rather than solely a conveyance of an estate in land. Under general contract law, a non-breaching party has a duty to make reasonable efforts to mitigate damages arising from the breach. The Court found it unreasonable and economically inefficient to allow landlords to delay termination and passively accumulate damages, stating that such a practice deters the productive use of land and encourages preventable economic loss. This principle had already been adopted in Vermont for residential landlord-tenant relationships in Hilder v. St. Peter. The Court clarified that this duty does not compel the landlord to accept a tenant's surrender or to sacrifice its own substantial rights, but merely mandates a reasonable response to abandonment. Applying this duty, the Court affirmed the trial court's finding that Burlington Square Mall failed to mitigate damages by unreasonably refusing to discuss reletting with prospective tenant Vivien Ginsberg and by misleading her. The Court concluded that the landlord could not impose the risk and cost of its business decision to wait for a higher-paying national tenant on the breaching tenant, Pickwick & Perkins, Ltd.
Analysis:
This decision marks a significant shift in Vermont landlord-tenant law, moving commercial leases firmly into the realm of contract law principles, consistent with the modern trend in many jurisdictions. By imposing an affirmative duty to mitigate damages, the Vermont Supreme Court promotes economic efficiency by encouraging landlords to promptly re-let abandoned premises, reducing property vacancy and preventing excessive damage accumulation. The ruling places a clear responsibility on commercial landlords to act reasonably and proactively, rather than passively allowing damages to accrue, even if their long-term strategy might yield a greater profit. Future cases will likely elaborate on the specific actions that constitute 'reasonable efforts' to mitigate, requiring landlords to document their attempts to find new tenants and to genuinely entertain offers.
