Grenfell v. Anderson, 1999 MT 272 (1999)

Citation: Grenfell v. Anderson, 1999 MT 272 (1999)
Parent Document: Grenfell v. Anderson, 1999 MT 272 (1999)
Jurisdiction: Montana (state)
Effective Date: 1999-11-09
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/884898/grenfell-v-anderson/ ↗

Full Text

1,153 chars

¶ In order to shed some clarity on the issue of notice, we must first distinguish between
"knowledge of default" and "notice of default," which seems to have influenced the District
Court in its findings. Obviously, Anderson knew that he was late in paying October rent. Under
the terms of the lease, he would likewise know that Grenfell could exercise his right under the
terms of the lease to lawfully "enter upon the leased premises," and repossess the premises "as if
this lease had not been made." But Anderson would have no knowledge of whether Grenfell had
so elected unless he received written notice, and thereby was afforded a 10-day grace period to
cure the alleged default. Although the record indicates that from time to time Anderson was late
in paying rent--particularly the utilities portion--the 10-day cure provision had been exercised by
Grenfell only once prior to October of 1991--in December of 1989. Therefore, Anderson’s
knowledge that he was late in paying rent is irrelevant to the discussion of whether he received a
default notice. With this said, we now address what constitutes effective notice under the lease in
question.

Other Sections in This Document (105)

Full Text