Commonwealth Bldg. Corp. v. Hirschfield - 307 Ill. App. 533, 30 N.E.2d 790 (1940)

Rule:

The holdover doctrine requires proof that the voluntary action of the tenant is such as to disclose the right of the landlord to assume an intention on the tenant's part to create a second tenancy, or that the action of the tenant is such that the court will as a matter of law hold the tenant liable for a second lease upon the principle of quasi contract that justice may prevail.

Facts:

James A. Hirschfield with his family was in possession of an apartment used for residence purposes, under a written lease with Commonwealth Building Corporation, which by its terms expired September 30, 1938. The lease contained a clause providing that if Hirschfield held over he would become liable for double rent. Hirschfield determined to move at the expiration of his lease, and about two months before the lease expired so notified Commonwealth Building by registered mail. Most of the goods had been moved out by the 30th, the day on which the lease expired. The work was, however, not quite completed. There had been some delay in getting the use of the elevators. Defendant gave evidence tending to show that the servants of plaintiff were responsible for this, but the evidence is denied by them and they on the contrary say they gave assistance. This would seem to be true as Mrs. Hirschfield testified she tipped them as a reward for their help. At any rate, when the lease expired at 12 o'clock on the night of September 30, the family was not yet out and with the servants slept in the apartment. Carpets and the bedroom furniture had not been removed but were promptly taken out on the following day, October 1. At about 10 o'clock on the morning of October 1, Commonwealth Building communicated its intention to renew the lease under the holdover doctrine. Commonwealth Building obtained a jury verdict for less than the damages sought, and both parties moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, which was denied. The court granted Hirschfield’s motion for a new trial, and Commonwealth Building appealed.

Issue:

Was Commonwealth Building entitled to rent under holdover doctrine?

Answer:

No

Conclusion:

The court reversed the order, but entered judgment for Hirschfield, holding that Commonwealth Building was not entitled to judgment under either of two holdover doctrine theories. Because Hirschfield was vacating the premises at reasonable speed and in good faith, he engaged in no voluntary action indicating an intention to enter into another lease, and his actions did not require the court to find a quasi-contract in the interests of justice. Also, the lease provided for double rent during any holdover occupancy period.