Wesson v. Leone Enterprises, Inc., 437 Mass. 708 (2002)

Citation: Wesson v. Leone Enterprises, Inc., 437 Mass. 708 (2002)
Parent Document: Wesson v. Leone Enterprises, Inc., 437 Mass. 708 (2002)
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts (state)
Effective Date: 2002-09-09
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6578571/wesson-v-leone-enterprises-inc/ ↗

Full Text

1,274 chars

The landlord claims that the judge erred by applying the dependent covenants rule to the parties’ lease and concluding that the landlord’s failure “to provide an essential service, a dry space” would have permitted the tenant “lawfully [to withhold] rent had he not vacated the Wesson building.” He contends that this court has not supplanted the independent covenants rule in Massachusetts, and therefore a commercial landlord’s breach of the covenant to repair does not relieve the tenant of his covenant to pay rent. See Stone v. Sullivan, 300 Mass. 450, 454 (1938); In re J.A.G., Inc., 1 B.R. 624, 627 (Bankr. D. Mass. 1980).24 As *720noted previously, the premise underlying the continued viability of the independent covenants rule is that a commercial lease is a conveyance of property where the right to possession of the land constitutes the chief element of the exchange. This premise no longer comports with the reality of the typical modem commercial lease, which is intended to secure the right to occupy improvements to the land rather than the land itself, and which usually contemplates a continuing flow of necessary services from landlord to tenant, services that are normally under the landlord’s control. See 1 M.R. Friedman, Leases § 1.1 (4th ed. 1997).

Other Sections in This Document (52)

Full Text