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

1,524 chars

¶ The District Court also relied on an order granting Grenfell a preliminary injunction in reaching its
conclusion that Anderson had not presented credible evidence to support his claim for damages. That order,
however, contains several key errors in light of the conclusions reached here. The order stated that Anderson
gave notice to Bice to vacate the premises even though he was not in default under the terms of his lease with
Anderson. This is incorrect as a matter of law because the tenancy was month-to-month and could be
terminated upon 30-days notice. The order found that Grenfell did not receive notice of the termination of
Bice’s subtenancy in accordance with the lease. Whether such notice was necessary under the terms of the lease
remains unclear and, regardless, the record shows that both Bice and Anderson informed Grenfell of the
termination of the subtenancy prior to any attempt by Houldson to take possession. The order further states
that there was "no evidence" that Anderson had a "legally bound alternative subtenant to lease the said
premises." The record shows that Anderson in fact had executed a lease with Houldson, and had received an
advance rent payment. Thus, the order does not provide current credible evidence that Anderson was not
damaged as a result of being prevented from entering the sublease with Houldson. Accordingly, the District
Court was mistaken in its reliance on this order in concluding that Anderson did not present credible evidence
to support his claim for damages.

Other Sections in This Document (105)

Full Text