Sunkidd Venture, Inc. v. Snyder-Entel

941 P.2d 16 (1997)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Entel (H) entered into a lease for a term that expired in August 1988. A provision in the lease states that the rental is to be occupied only 'by Tenants with the ability to contract whose signatures are affixed hereto, consisting of one adult and no children . . . .' Occupancy by any other people was declared a breach of the agreement. H married W in June 1988, the couple lived together in the apartment. In early August 1988, the landlord sent three notices to the apartment, addressed to Hl, informing him he had three days to quit the premises or pay rent. The third notice included a form that allowed H to check a box and extend the lease for a year, 'with all other terms and conditions remaining the same.' H signed the lease extension and returned it. W did not sign, but she later testified she remembered receiving the third notice and understanding that the landlord intended to terminate the tenancy at the end of the month. W also testified H told her he had extended the lease and she assumed they would live there another year. W usually wrote the rent checks from a joint account and occasionally complained about maintenance problems. In October 1988, W sent notice that they intended to vacate by the end of the month. The landlord charged them $ 3,770 for cleaning, rent through the term of the lease, average utilities for that period and advertising for new tenants. W contended that the landlord broke the lease because it did not fix the maintenance problems. The landlord assigned the debt to P for collection. P filed a complaint in district court against W was 'individually liable' for the accounts due on the lease abandonment. The amount had been reduced to $ 1,444 because the apartment was rented within two months. H and W separated in September 1992 and divorced in April 1993. In June 1994, W denied any contractual relationship. The judge found that W was not liable for the lease extension because she did not sign it and had no notice of it before its execution. W did not repudiate the lease extension after notice. The appeal court affirmed, and P appealed.