Section 70-24-202

Citation: Section 70-24-202
Parent Document: Summers v. Crestview Apartments, 2010 MT 164 (2010)
Jurisdiction: Montana (state)
Effective Date: 2010-07-27
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/889353/summers-v-crestview-apartments/ ↗

Full Text

1,028 chars

*139¶53 Unlike the Court, the Restatement does not view acceleration to be contrary to mitigation, but rather deems acceleration clauses to be reasonable if mitigation is employed to limit the damages. Restatement (Second) of Property: Landlord and Tenant § 12.1 cmt. k. The Restatement’s position is consistent with our statutes, § 70-24-401(1), MCA (“[t]he aggrieved party has a duty to mitigate damages”), and the rental agreement precisely required landlord mitigation: “The foregoing [accelerated rent] provision shall not relieve the Landlord of its obligation to mitigate damages.” (Emphasis added.) The District Court concluded that Crestview “acted reasonably to mitigate [Summers’] damages.” Although the Court states its agreement with the District Court’s conclusion, it nonetheless holds that, as a matter of law, the acceleration clause here undermined Crestview’s duty to mitigate damages. Opinion, ¶ 27 and n. 2.1 believe this conclusion is unsupported by legal authorities generally and the record of this case.

Other Sections in This Document (530)

Full Text