The Hendersons are essentially arguing that subsequent to signing the rental agreement, James Halpin orally agreed to allow them to live in the Lincoln property rent-free. As established above, the party alleging the oral modification bears the burden of proving its existence. Furthermore, when such a modification is in direct contravention of an express term of the written agreement, the moving party must demonstrate that all parties had both a subjective and objective intent to be bound by the oral modification. Section 34-18-11(13) defines rent as "the payment or consideration that a tenant pays to a landlord for the use of the premises, whether money, services, property, or produce of the land." As such, it would have been possible for the parties to agree that a tenant's services for renovation work constituted a portion of the monthly rental consideration. However, in the case at bar, this would require the Plaintiff to waive his contractual right to monetary rental payments. Given the evidence of a separate oral contract for the renovation work, and testimony at trial from both Mr. Halpin and the Defendants that they were to be paid $3,000 each, per month, on account of such services, it seems *Page 7
unlikely that Plaintiff would additionally agree to waive his rights to monetary rental payments in light of the failure of the rental agreement to include such services as part of the stipulated rent. As such, this Court finds Defendants have failed to meet their burden of proof with respect to the alleged oral modification, and are required to pay rent pursuant to the March 1, 2008 lease.