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

1,103 chars

The upshot of the rule is that, if a lease contains an enforceable liquidated damages provision and the tenant defaults, the landlord can stand by and do nothing to relet the premises or otherwise mitigate damages, and the landlord still would be entitled to collect all of the rent owed by the tenant for the remainder of the lease term. See NPS, LLC, supra at 422 n.7 (noting that plaintiff had not resold defendant's luxury seat "some four years after the defendant committed a breach of the agreement"); Panagakos, supra at 701 (noting that landlord "did not lease [property] to any other tenant"). While one might question the fairness of that result, it is dictated by our case law. [Note 7] But the cases cited by Cummings do not address the situation where, as here, the landlord does relet the property and then seeks to recover the remaining rent from the original tenant as liquidated damages. The issue in this situation is not whether the landlord had a duty to mitigate, but whether the landlord is entitled to recover the liquidated damages while also collecting rent from the new tenant.

Other Sections in This Document (38)

Full Text