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

1,296 chars

¶ Grenfell’s changing the locks on the premises on October 28, 1991, pursuant to the express terms of the lease,
effectively terminated the lease between Grenfell and Anderson. In LIC, Inc. v. Baltrusch (1985), 215 Mont. 44,
48, 692 P.2d 1264, 1266, we concluded that by changing the locks a party had as a matter of law repossessed the
premises. See also Deeb v. Canniff (Colo. App. 1971), 488 P.2d 93, 95 (holding that changing the locks by
sublessor terminated sublease agreement, and trial court properly withdrew sublessor’s counterclaim for rent
from the jury); Towers Co. v. Trinidad and Tobago (S.D.N.Y. 1995), 903 F.Supp. 515, 527 (stating that
changing the locks to rented premises constitutes an eviction so long as evidence sufficiently demonstrates intent of
the landlord to keep the tenant out by reason of this action). That this act conclusively
terminated the lease is enhanced by the fact that on October 29, 1991, Grenfell sent a letter to
Bice, Anderson’s sublessee, instructing him to remit rent and utility payments directly to
Grenfell, under the theory that his repossession entitled him to take over Anderson’s subleases.
In all respects, the evidence demonstrates that the these acts were intended by Grenfell to
terminate the lease in accordance with the lease’s terms.

Other Sections in This Document (105)

Full Text