Ruud v. Larson
392 N.W.2d 62 (1986)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A landlord has a duty to make a good faith effort to mitigate damages arising from a tenant's default, and the burden is on the tenant to prove the landlord's efforts were not made in good faith. The determination of whether a landlord has made a good faith effort is a finding of fact that will only be overturned on appeal if it is clearly erroneous.
Facts:
- In 1976, Ruud leased a commercial property to Larson for a ten-year term for the operation of a car wash and gas station.
- The lease required Larson to pay monthly rent and property taxes.
- In early 1982, Larson defaulted on the lease by failing to pay rent for January and February and failing to pay the 1981 property taxes.
- Following the default, Larson proposed a sublease of the property to Charles Luna and agreed to pay the outstanding tax arrearages as part of the arrangement.
- Ruud's counsel sent a redrafted sublease agreement to Larson, contingent upon Larson's agreement to pay the tax arrearages.
- Instead of signing the sublease, Larson refused and made counter-proposals to either purchase the land from Ruud or sell the on-site building to Ruud, which Ruud rejected.
- After the proposed sublease to Luna failed, Ruud personally attempted to relet the property, making over 140 contacts with approximately 50 prospective tenants.
- Ruud sought a monthly rent of $1,200, which was higher than Larson's $700 rent but was testified to be the fair market value for the property at the time.
Procedural Posture:
- Ruud sued Larson in a North Dakota district court (trial court) for breach of a real estate lease.
- The trial court found that Larson had breached the lease and that Ruud had made diligent, good faith efforts to mitigate damages.
- The trial court entered a judgment awarding damages and attorney's fees to Ruud.
- Larson (appellant) appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of North Dakota, challenging only the trial court's finding regarding Ruud's (appellee's) mitigation efforts.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the trial court clearly err in finding that a landlord made a good faith effort to mitigate damages by conditioning a sublease on the tenant's prior agreement to pay arrearages and later attempting to relet the property at a higher, but reasonable, market rent?
Opinions:
Majority - Gierke, Justice.
No, the trial court did not clearly err. The finding that the landlord made a good faith effort to mitigate damages was supported by the evidence. A landlord's duty is to make a reasonable and diligent effort to relet the property, and the burden is on the tenant to prove a lack of good faith. The condition to pay back taxes was not unilaterally imposed by Ruud; rather, it was part of an agreement negotiated between the parties that Larson himself proposed and then abandoned. After this deal failed, Ruud's extensive personal efforts to relet the property—including over 140 contacts—were substantial. Seeking a higher, fair market rent does not constitute bad faith, especially when the tenant's own expert confirmed the rent was reasonable and the tenant himself had been seeking the same amount.
Dissenting - Levine, Justice,
Yes, the trial court did clearly err. The landlord did not act in good faith when he rejected the sublease. The focus should be on the landlord's duty to mitigate, not the tenant's conduct in negotiations. A landlord may not condition approval of a suitable sublessee on the payment of arrearages. Because Larson produced a willing and able subtenant, Ruud acted unreasonably by rejecting the sublease when Larson reneged on a separate promise to pay the back taxes, especially since the original lease already held Larson liable for those debts.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the factual inquiry involved in a landlord's duty to mitigate damages. It reinforces that the burden of proof is on the tenant to demonstrate the landlord's lack of good faith. The court's decision provides landlords with flexibility, indicating that commercially reasonable actions, such as seeking fair market rent and engaging in negotiations over arrearages initiated by the tenant, do not automatically breach the duty to mitigate. This holding distinguishes between a landlord unilaterally imposing conditions on a sublease and a landlord holding a tenant to terms the tenant themselves proposed, making the context of negotiations a key factor in the good faith analysis.
