Yes. A landlord has to try to find a new renter. Old laws treated a lease like selling a piece of property for a certain time, meaning the landlord couldn't interfere with it even if the renter left. But today, a lease is more like a contract for a service (a place to live). In contract law, if someone breaks a deal, the other person has to take reasonable steps to keep the damages from getting worse. It's not fair and is wasteful to let a landlord leave an apartment empty on purpose and then force the old renter to pay for all of it.

The Court ruled that when a renter moves out early, the landlord must make reasonable efforts to find a new renter. The apartment should be treated like any other empty apartment the landlord is trying to rent out. The landlord has to prove they tried to find a new renter. If they don't try, the old renter doesn't have to keep paying. This is based on fairness and treating leases more like regular contracts. The old rule letting landlords just leave the apartment empty and collect rent was unfair. In the Sommer case, the landlord didn't try at all to find a new renter for over a year, so Kridel wins and doesn't owe any more rent. In the Riverview case, there has to be a new trial to determine if the landlord made enough effort to find a new renter.

Yes, when a renter moves out early, the landlord must make reasonable efforts to find a new renter. The apartment should be treated like any other empty apartment the landlord is trying to rent out. The landlord has to prove they tried to find a new renter. If they don't try, the old renter doesn't have to keep paying. This is based on fairness and treating leases more like regular contracts. The old rule letting landlords just leave the apartment empty and collect rent was unfair. In the Sommer case, the landlord didn't try at all to find a new renter for over a year, so Kridel wins and doesn't owe any more rent. In the Riverview case, there has to be a new trial to determine if the landlord made enough effort to find a new renter.

—"[a] landlord has a duty to mitigate damages where he seeks to recover rents due from a defaulting tenant."

Our Supreme Court has required that a landlord, where he seeks to recover rents from a defaulting tenant for the balance of the term, mitigate damages by making reasonable efforts to relet the apartment wrongfully vacated by the tenant.

—wherein the Court stated, "generally in contract actions the breaching party has the burden of proving that damages are capable of mitigation

"[W] e reserve for another day the question of whether a landlord must mitigate damages in a commercial setting."

—the New Jersey Supreme Court set forth the evidence that a factfinder should consider in determining whether a landlord has fulfilled its obligation to mitigate damages.

While "[i] t is well settled that a party claiming damages for a breach of contract has a duty to mitigate his loss,"

—on the idea that the lease was primarily a contract and only secondarily a transfer of a property interest

—where tenant abandons apartment, landlord cannot simply sue for the rent payable for balance of lease term, but must make reasonable efforts to re-let the apartment

We note in this regard that it is far from settled that a commercial landlord has a duty to mitigate by attempting to relet.

“We therefore hold that antiquated real property concepts which served as the basis for the pre-existing rule shall no longer be controlling where there is a claim for damages under a residential lease. Such claims must be governed by more modern notions of fairness and equity. A landlord has a duty to mitigate damages where he seeks to recover rents due from a …

Yes. A landlord has a duty to mitigate damages by making a reasonable effort to re-let an apartment wrongfully vacated by a tenant. The court overrules prior precedent, which was based on the outdated property law concept that a lease is a conveyance of an estate in land. Modern residential leases are more analogous to contracts for services, and under contract law, the non-breaching party has a well-established duty to mitigate damages. Applying this principle is a matter of basic fairness and promotes economic efficiency by discouraging landlords from allowing usable rental space to remain vacant.

Yes, a landlord has a duty to mitigate damages where a tenant wrongfully vacates a residential apartment before the end of the lease term. The landlord must treat the apartment as if it was one of his vacant stock and make reasonable efforts to re-let it. This duty is based on modern principles of fairness and equity in contract law, rather than outdated property law concepts that treated a lease as a transfer of property. The landlord bears the burden of proving reasonable efforts were made to re-let the premises. If reasonable efforts are not made, the tenant's duty to pay rent will be relieved. The Court overrules prior precedent that allowed a landlord to let the apartment remain vacant and still recover full rent from the breaching tenant. This is because it would be unfair to allow a landlord to stand idly by and increase damages needlessly when reasonable efforts could avoid some of the loss. The case of Sommer v. Kridel is reversed outright because the landlord made no effort for over a year to re-let the apartment despite a willing tenant. The case of Riverview Realty v. Perosio is remanded for a new trial on whether the landlord used reasonable diligence to re-let the premises and mitigate damages.

Yes, a landlord has a duty to mitigate damages where a tenant wrongfully vacates a residential apartment before the end of the lease term. The landlord must treat the apartment as if it was one of his vacant stock and make reasonable efforts to re-let it. This duty is based on modern principles of fairness and equity in contract law, rather than outdated property law concepts that treated a lease as a transfer of property. The landlord bears the burden of proving reasonable efforts were made to re-let the premises. If reasonable efforts are not made, the tenant's duty to pay rent will be relieved. We overrule prior precedent that allowed a landlord to let the apartment remain vacant and still recover full rent from the breaching tenant. This is because it would be unfair to allow a landlord to stand idly by and increase damages needlessly when reasonable efforts could avoid some of the loss. The case of Sommer v. Kridel is reversed outright because the landlord made no effort for over a year to re-let the apartment despite a willing tenant. The case of Riverview Realty v. Perosio is remanded for a new trial on whether the landlord used reasonable diligence to re-let the premises and mitigate damages.

Sommer v. Kridel

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot