CUMMINGS PROPERTIES, LLC v. DARRYL C. HINES., 201 N.E.3d 295 (2022)

Citation: CUMMINGS PROPERTIES, LLC v. DARRYL C. HINES., 201 N.E.3d 295 (2022)
Parent Document: CUMMINGS PROPERTIES, LLC v. DARRYL C. HINES., 201 N.E.3d 295 (2022)
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts (state)
Effective Date: 2022-12-05
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10271850/cummings-properties-llc-v-darr... ↗

Full Text

1,481 chars

Our conclusion is consistent with the unanimous view of other courts. The function of a rent acceleration clause is to require the tenant "to pay . . . what it agreed to pay up front for the entire term of the lease." National Communications, 449 Mass. at 497 n.9. Thus, upon payment of the accelerated rent, the tenant would be entitled to retain possession of the property. See Fifty States Mgt. Corp. v. Pioneer Auto Parks, Inc., 46 N.Y.2d 573, 578 (1979) (acceleration clause "is merely a device in the landlord-tenant relationship intended to secure the tenant's obligation to perform a material element of the bargain and its enforcement works no forfeiture" so long as "the sum reserved for liquidated damages is no greater than the amount the tenant would have paid had it fully performed and . . . the tenant would be entitled to possession upon payment"); Peirce v. Hoffstot, 211 Pa. Super. 380, 384 (1967) ("The tenant . . . does not forfeit all of his rights when the landlord accelerates, but must thereafter be accorded his possessory rights on payment of the accelerated rent"). It follows then, and "the authorities agree," that if the landlord regains possession and relets the property, "the landlord may not keep both the accelerated rent and rent received from renting to a new tenant." Restatement (Second) of Property (Landlord & Tenant) § 12.1 Reporter's note 10 (1977). [Note 6] Cummings cites no case holding to the contrary, nor have we found one. Page 35

Other Sections in This Document (38)

Full Text