The Napiers contend that because the mobile home was not
abandoned and the Adkisons did not follow any of the
statutory requirements for terminating the rental agreement,
the Adkisons unlawfully removed or excluded the Napiers from
the mobile home. Therefore, under section 70-24-411, MCA,
they contend that the Adkisons are liable for the value of
the rental as of July 13, 1982, and the value of the property
stolen from the mobile home.
The Residential Landlord and Tenant Act as adopted in
Montana provides that "[elxcept in the case of abandonment,
surrender, or as permitted in this chapter, a landlord may
not recover or take possession of the d.welling unit by action
or otherwise . . .I
' Section 70-24-428, MCA. A landlord,
then, may take possession of a dwelling unit under only three
circumstances: 1) abandonment; 2) surrender; or 3) as
permitted in the Uniform Landlord and Tenant Act. If the
tenant abandons the dwelling unit and "if the landlord
accepts the abandonment as a surrender, the rental agreement
is terminated hy the landlord as of the date the landlord has
notice of the abandonment." Section 70-24-426, MCA.
Here, the District Court determined that the Napiers
abandoned the premises as of June 27, 1982. The record shows
that the Napiers did not make the rental payment as agreed on
June 27th; the Napiers' dogs were left unattended in the
mobile home and had damaged the interior of the mobile home;
the Adkisons had repeatedly stopped by the mobile home yet
could find no one present; and, when contacted, the Napiers'
daughter told the Adkisons that she did not know where her
parents were. This evidence clearly supports the District
Court's conclusion that the mobile home was abandoned by the
Napiers .
Under section 70-24-426, MCA, the Adkisons could accept
the abandonment as a surrender and take possession of the
property. The rental agreement would then be deemed
terminated as of the date that the Adkisons had notice of the
abandonment. Because the Adkisons proceeded under section
70-24-426, MCA, to terminate the rental agreement they were
not required to give notice to the Napiers. Therefore, the
issue of whether the Napiers were given proper notice of
termination is irrelevant.
Although the Adkisons were required by the Uniform
Landlord and Tenant Act to make reasonable attempts to notify
the tenant in writing after an abandonment that all personal
property must be removed from the premises, they were not
responsible for any loss to the Napiers resulting from
storage of the personal property u.nless the loss was caused
by a purposeful or negligent act on behalf of the Adkisons.
Sections 70-24-430 (1) and ( 5 ) , MCA.
Here, the necessary causal connection is missing. The
burglary of the mobile home was not a foreseeable consequence
of the Adkisons' act of placing the padlock on the mobile
home door and the Adkisons may not be held liable for any
loss resulting from the burglary. Thus the Napiers' claim
for damages was properly rejected by the District Court.
However, section 70-24-427, MCA, provides that "[ilf the
rental agreement is terminated, the landlord has a claim for
possession and for rent and a separate claim for actual
damages for any breach of the rental agreement." Because the
rental agreement was properly terminated. by the Adkisons
under section 70-24-426, MCA, they have a valid claim against
the Napiers for rent and damages, contrary to the judgment of
the District Court.
The District Court is therefore affirmed in part,
reversed in part and remanded to the District Court with
directions to reinstate the Adkisons' claim for rent and
actual damages for breach of the rental agreement and further
proceedings consonant with this opinion. We Concur: