Wesson v. Leone Enterprises, Inc.
774 N.E.2d 661 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In commercial leases, a landlord's covenant to make repairs and a tenant's covenant to pay rent are mutually dependent. A landlord's failure to perform a valid promise that was a significant inducement to the making of the lease entitles the tenant to terminate the lease.
Facts:
- Leone Enterprises, Inc. (Leone), a financial printing company, leased commercial space from John T. Wesson, trustee of Wesson Realty Trust (Wesson), for a five-year term beginning March 31, 1988.
- In April 1991, Leone began complaining to Wesson about significant leaks in the roof of the building.
- Throughout the spring and summer of 1991, Wesson made multiple attempts to repair the roof, both personally and by hiring a professional contractor, but the leaks persisted.
- The ongoing leaks forced Leone to take protective measures, such as covering expensive high-tech printing equipment and customer paper stock with plastic sheeting to prevent water damage.
- A final leak was reported and repaired in early September 1991, with no further leaks reported thereafter.
- On November 4, 1991, Leone notified Wesson that it would be vacating the premises by December 31, 1991, citing the 'serious leakage problem.'
- Leone paid rent in full through the end of 1991 and moved into a different commercial space.
Procedural Posture:
- Wesson (landlord) filed a complaint for breach of contract against Leone (tenant) in the District Court.
- The case was transferred to the Superior Court.
- Leone filed counterclaims for constructive eviction and deceptive business practices.
- Following a jury-waived trial, the Superior Court judge found in favor of Leone on the breach of contract claim and the constructive eviction counterclaim, awarding Leone damages.
- The judge also held, in the alternative, that Leone could have lawfully withheld rent under the rule of dependent covenants.
- Wesson appealed the judgment to the intermediate appellate court.
- The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts transferred the case from the intermediate appellate court on its own motion.
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 landlord's breach of a covenant to repair the premises, which deprives a commercial tenant of a substantial benefit of the lease, relieve the tenant of its obligation to pay rent and permit the tenant to terminate the lease?
Opinions:
Majority - Cordy, J.
Yes, a landlord's breach of a covenant that was a significant inducement to the tenant entering a commercial lease relieves the tenant of its obligations and allows termination. This court abandons the common-law rule of independent covenants in commercial leases, which held that a landlord's breach did not excuse a tenant's duty to pay rent. Instead, the court adopts the modern rule of mutually dependent covenants as reflected in the Restatement (Second) of Property § 7.1. The court found that while the landlord's failure to repair the roof did not rise to the level of a constructive eviction because it did not render the premises 'untenantable,' it did deprive the tenant of a substantial benefit significant to the purpose of the lease. Providing a 'dry space' was a significant inducement for a high-tech printing company to enter the lease. Therefore, because the landlord failed to perform this crucial promise after being given reasonable notice, the tenant was entitled to terminate the lease and recover relocation costs.
Analysis:
This decision marks a fundamental shift in Massachusetts commercial landlord-tenant law by replacing the antiquated property-law concept of independent covenants with the modern contract-law principle of mutually dependent covenants. By doing so, the court lowered the threshold for a tenant to terminate a lease due to a landlord's breach; a tenant no longer needs to prove the high standard of constructive eviction (that the premises are untenantable). This change provides commercial tenants with greater remedies and leverage, aligning Massachusetts law with the Restatement and a growing national trend that treats modern commercial leases more like contracts than conveyances of land.
