Section 23A

Citation: Section 23A
Parent Document: BLT Burger DC, LLC v. Norvin 1301 CT, LLC, 86 A.3d 1139 (2014)
Jurisdiction: DC (municipal)
Effective Date: 2014-03-13
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2656505/blt-burger-dc-llc-v-norvin-1301-ct-llc/ ↗

Full Text

1,087 chars

(. . . continued)
Under the second Truitt option, however, the landlord does not acquiesce in the
abandonment but instead reenters the premises to mitigate damages by reletting
and seeking damages from the tenant based on the difference, if any, between the
rental stream in the abandoned lease and the rentals contracted under the new
lease. See Truitt, 486 A.2d at 1172 (including text accompanying supra note 5);
RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF PROPERTY, LANDLORD AND TENANT § 12.1 (3)(b).
Although Tenant purports to rely on Truitt’s first option to characterize this case,
Tenant‟s acknowledgment that, under Ostrow, Landlord is entitled to post-
surrender damages effectively shifts the characterization to Truitt’s second option
– as we, too, have understood the situation.
      43
           Even the Wilson case from Maryland on which Tenant fundamentally
relies recognizes contract damages during a period in which a landlord advertises
simultaneously to relet or sell. See Wilson v. Ruhl, 356 A.2d 544, 546, 547 (Md.
1976); supra note 6.
                                          36

Other Sections in This Document (499)

Full Text