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

1,043 chars

¶ We thoroughly addressed the consequences of a lease that does not expressly provide for the
continuing right to receive rent following termination in Knight v. OMI Corp. (1977), 174 Mont.
72, 568 P.2d 552. In Knight, OMI, the lessee, was delinquent in its rent payments under a
commercial lease. The Knights, following their termination of the lease, reentry, and
repossession, sought damages for being deprived of future rent throughout the entire term of the
lease, less any sums recoverable in mitigation. In affirming summary judgment for OMI, we
stated the rule that "[i]n the absence of clear language expressly preserving such right, courts
generally will not construe a lease as providing that, upon reentry or forfeiture, the tenant shall
remain liable for unaccrued rent." Knight, 174 Mont. at 75, 568 P.2d at 554. We held that "a
lease must contain clear language to the effect that a tenant is to remain liable for rent accruing
subsequent to the landlord’s cancellation, if such liability is to be imposed." Knight, 174 Mont. at

Other Sections in This Document (105)

Full Text