Our decisions in this case and Miller are consonant with other jurisdictions, which have held that “[a] landlord may waive the effect of a notice to quit by thereafter accepting rent unqualifiedly.” 52 C.J.S. Landlord § 294 (2003). Whether a landlord has waived the right to evict a tenant is a fact question that requires “balancing of the evidence to show consent or a contrary intent.” Annotation, Landlord Consent to Extension or Renewal of Lease as Shown by Acceptance of Rent, 45 A.L.R. 827, 831 (1956). Though there is agreement on the general rule, there is a split among jurisdictions concerning analysis of the evidence. Some courts have held that acceptance of rent creates a presumption of a new tenancy, while others do not. Compare Corcoran Management Co. v. Withers, 513 N.E.2d 218, 222-23 (Mass. App. Ct. 1987) (presumption created) with Wang v. Marcus Brush Co., 823 N.E.2d 140, 141 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005) (no presump*94tion). However, all agree that where there is evidence that a landlord intended to continue with eviction proceedings, a new tenancy is not created.