Gooding Realty Corp. v. Bristol Bay CVS, Inc., 763 A.2d 650 (2000)
- Citation
- Gooding Realty Corp. v. Bristol Bay CVS, Inc., 763 A.2d 650 (2000)
- Parent Document
- Gooding Realty Corp. v. Bristol Bay CVS, Inc., 763 A.2d 650 (2000)
- Jurisdiction
- Rhode Island (state)
- Effective Date
- 2000-12-26
Other Sections in This Document (17)
- Gooding Realty Corp. v. Bristol Bay CVS, Inc., 763 A.2d 650 (2000)
- Gooding Realty Corp. v. Bristol Bay CVS, Inc., 763 A.2d 650 (2000)
- Gooding Realty Corp. v. Bristol Bay CVS, Inc., 763 A.2d 650 (2000)
- Gooding Realty Corp. v. Bristol Bay CVS, Inc., 763 A.2d 650 (2000)
- Gooding Realty Corp. v. Bristol Bay CVS, Inc., 763 A.2d 650 (2000)
- Gooding Realty Corp. v. Bristol Bay CVS, Inc., 763 A.2d 650 (2000)
- Gooding Realty Corp. v. Bristol Bay CVS, Inc., 763 A.2d 650 (2000)
- Gooding Realty Corp. v. Bristol Bay CVS, Inc., 763 A.2d 650 (2000)
- Gooding Realty Corp. v. Bristol Bay CVS, Inc., 763 A.2d 650 (2000)
- Gooding Realty Corp. v. Bristol Bay CVS, Inc., 763 A.2d 650 (2000)
- Gooding Realty Corp. v. Bristol Bay CVS, Inc., 763 A.2d 650 (2000)
- Gooding Realty Corp. v. Bristol Bay CVS, Inc., 763 A.2d 650 (2000)
- Gooding Realty Corp. v. Bristol Bay CVS, Inc., 763 A.2d 650 (2000)
- Gooding Realty Corp. v. Bristol Bay CVS, Inc., 763 A.2d 650 (2000)
- Gooding Realty Corp. v. Bristol Bay CVS, Inc., 763 A.2d 650 (2000)
- Gooding Realty Corp. v. Bristol Bay CVS, Inc., 763 A.2d 650 (2000)
- Gooding Realty Corp. v. Bristol Bay CVS, Inc., 763 A.2d 650 (2000)
Full Text
1,293 charsWe are of the opinion that the liability of CVS for rent was a justiciable issue on its own merits. Some courts have held that the mere failure to return the key or keys to leased premises will not establish without more that the tenant is a holdover. See, e.g., Consumers Distributing Co., Ltd. v. Hermann, 107 Nev. 387, 812 P.2d 1274, 1277 (1991) (“the failure to return keys does not constitute a holdover”); see also Casería v. Action for Bridgeport Community Development, Inc., 34 Conn.Supp. 561, 377 A.2d 856, 857 (1976) (where landlord had access to the building, whether or not keys had been returned at some later time, and tenant had completely vacated the building with the exception of a machine left on the premises, landlord did not prove that tenant was a holdover); Hoopes v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America, 48 Ill.App.3d 146, 6 Ill.Dec. 167, 362 N.E.2d 802, 805 (1977) (“[T]he retention of one key which defendant’s secretary used to gain access to the premises to remove a decal from the door may be evidence of possession, but is not conclusive.”); 1 American Law of Property, § 3.34 at 240 (1952) (“[l]eaving worthless property on the premises, failure to remove a few arti*654cles or the retention of the keys is not *** holding over within the meaning of the rule”).