THE RIGHTS OF THE LANDLORD UPON ABANDONMENT OF THE PREMISES BY THE TENANT
McCormick, Charles T.
Citation analytics
How this journal article sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.
Citations by decade
Courts citing this journal article
Most recently cited by6
- 1980Millison v. Clarke Md.
- 1977Ringwood Associates, Ltd. v. Jack's of Route 23, Inc. N.J. Super. Ct. Law Div.
- 1977Sommer v. Kridel N.J.
- 1976Riverview Realty Co. v. Perosio N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.
- 1956Gruman v. Investors Diversified Services, Inc. Minn.
- 1951Dearborn Stove Co. v. Caples Tex.
Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.
Abstract
The situation which presents itself to the landowner when the tenant defaults in his rent and withdraws from the premises, if the condition has not been foreseen and adequately provided for in the lease contract, may give rise to some perplexities. In the absence of a contract or a statute entitling him to do so, the landlord has no power to terminate the lease for non-payment of rent ; frequently, however, there is a possibility that the defaulting tenant may be financially able to respond for the rent or for such loss as the landlord may sustain for the remainder of the lease period. The advice that the landlord would like to hear from his attorney under such circumstances is that he has the privilege of resuming control of the premises for the tenant's account and letting them out again to other tenants for the balance of the term as best he may, and then of holding the tenant liable for the original rent he contracted to pay, less the collections thus made by the landlord. Moreover, this seems to be a desirable result from the viewpoint of the community, as without any unfairness to either of the parties concerned it renders it more probable that the premises will constantly be in use rather than lie unproductively vacant.
Under what circumstances, and with what limitations and precautions, may such advice be given?