Bass v. Boetel & Co.

Facts

P entered into a written lease of the premises with Ds' predecessor in interest. Rent was payable monthly at the rate of $400 for a period of 3 years. On April 20, 1971, Ds acquired the property. The transaction included an assignment of one-third of the April rent. P operated a billiard parlor on the premises. His business was seasonal, greater in the winter than in the summer. In 1970, he was unable to pay rent for a period of 3 months but was permitted to make up the payments during the following 3 months. At the time of the transfer of the premises to Ds, P had not paid the April rent. He paid no rent to Ds. As of June 1, 1971, he was indebted to them for the rent from April 21, 1971. When Bass attempted to open for business on June 1, 1971, he found Ds had changed the outside locks on the billiard parlor. He went to their office to discuss the matter but was refused a key. P hired a locksmith, had the locks changed, and went in to resume business. When the locksmith opened the door, the alarm went off and the security patrol showed up and asked for his identification. Shortly thereafter representatives of Ds appeared and told P he could no longer occupy the premises. He stayed in the premises a short while and then sought legal advice. P removed his books, money from the cash register, some standing ashtrays, and a case for pool cues from the premises. When he returned to the premises the locks had again been changed, and he could not reenter. The remainder of his equipment, with the exception of the carpeting, had been removed from the premises. P was never given a written notice to quit as required by statute, nor served with legal process. The pool and snooker tables were subject to a mortgage of which $3,000 remained unpaid. Ds permitted the mortgagee to remove the tables. P assented to their sale, in consideration of the discharge of the debt. The mortgagee sold the tables for $5,665. P received nothing from the proceeds of the sale. P sued Ds seeking damages for the equipment Ds seized. Ds asserted the right to use self-help as a matter of law. In the event of default in payment of rent, the lease provided as follows: ' the Lessor may * * * without demand * * * or notice * * * at once declare this lease terminated, and the Lessor may re-enter said premises without any formal notice or demand and hold and enjoy the same thenceforth as if these presents had not been made, * * *.' The lease also provided: 'If the Lessee shall not promptly remove all his property * * * whenever the Lessor shall become entitled to * * * possession * * * as herein agreed, the Lessor may, without notice, remove the same * * * in any manner * * *, or if the Lessee shall at any time vacate or abandon said premises, and leave any * * * chattels * * * for a period of ten days after such vacation or abandonment, or after the termination of this lease in any manner * * * then the Lessor shall have the right to sell * * * said * * * chattels * * * without * * * notice to the Lessee, or any notice of sale, all notices required by statute or otherwise being hereby expressly waived, * * *. * * * all * * * chattels, fixtures and other personal property belonging to * * * Lessee, which are, or may be put into the said leased premises during said term, whether exempt or not from sale under execution or attachment * * *, shall at all times be bound with a first lien in favor of * * * Lessor, and shall be chargeable for all rent * * * which * * * lien may be enforced in like manner as a chattel mortgage, or in any other manner afforded by law.' P alleged breach of quiet enjoyment and public ridicule and a wrongful taking. The jury awarded P $12,000. D appealed. 

Issues

Rule of Law

Holding and Decision

Legal Analysis

© 2007-2024 ABN Study Partner.