Brill et al. v. Haifetz

12 Citing cases

  1. In re Peters

    Bankruptcy No. 03-11077DWS (Bankr. E.D. Pa. May. 7, 2004)   Cited 4 times

    Stonehedge Square Ltd. Partnership v. Movie Merchants, Inc., 685 A.2d 1019, 1023 ( Pa. Super. 1996) (citations omitted), aff'd 715 A.2d 1082 (1998). Accord Ralph v. Deiley, 141 A. at 642; Brill v. Haifetz, 44 A.2d 311, 313 ( Pa. Super. 1945). In this case, Peters returned the keys to Watertower and vacated the Premises in March 2002. The Partnership also ceased paying any rent after January 2002. The Premises remained vacant until Incentive entered under a new lease on January 1, 2003. There was no evidence of any express agreement between the parties (written or oral) concerning any acceptance of Peters' surrender when he vacated in March 2002 or when Watertower later relet the Premises.

  2. In re Slim Life Weight Loss Centers, Corp.

    182 B.R. 701 (Bankr. D.N.J. 1995)   Cited 6 times
    Applying Pennsylvania law

    " Ralph v. Deiley, 293 Pa. at 94, 141 A. 640. "The burden of proof is on the party alleging the surrender by operation of law to prove it, and, where it is to be inferred from the circumstances or conduct inconsistent with intention to perform, the proof must be clear." Brill v. Haifetz, 158 Pa. Super. 158, 162, 44 A.2d 311, 313 (1945). The bankruptcy court in In re Allegheny International, Inc., 136 B.R. 396 (Bankr. W.D.Pa. 1991), applied Pennsylvania law to determine that the premises at issue had not been surrendered.

  3. Norritech v. Geonex Corp.

    204 B.R. 684 (D. Md. 1997)   Cited 9 times

    The burden of proof is on the party alleging a surrender by operation of law to prove it, and, where it is to be inferred from circumstances or conduct inconsistent with intention to perform, the proof must be clear. 158 Pa. Super. 158, 44 A.2d 311, 313 (1945) (quotations and citations omitted). That a landlord has accepted a tenant's surrender cannot be inferred from mere repossession of the property.

  4. Millison v. Clarke

    413 A.2d 198 (Md. 1980)   Cited 9 times

    The last of the Pennsylvania trilogy declined to reverse a judgment for the landlord where acceptance of surrender, as a matter of law, was argued to have occurred. Brill v. Haifetz, 158 Pa. Super. 158, 44 A.2d 311 (1945). There the lease expressly permitted the landlord to relet and to hold the tenant "`liable for any loss of rent for the balance of the then term.'"

  5. Kanter v. Safran

    68 So. 2d 553 (Fla. 1953)   Cited 42 times
    Finding implied acceptance of lessor's offer to re-take premises for lessee's account upon lessee's relinquishment of premises

    Christenson v. Ohrman, supra [ 159 Kan. 565, 156 P.2d 851]. Thus, the parties may so contract in their lease agreement as to make the implication untenable, Continental Bank Trust Co. of N Y v. Goodner, supra; Brill v. Haifetz, 158 Pa. Super. 158, 44 A.2d 311; Crow v. Kaupp, Mo.Sup., 50 S.W.2d 995, as where the lease specifically provides that the lessor may re-enter and re-let for the account of the lessee. And, clearly, there can be no presumption of an acceptance of a surrender when the lessor accepts the keys and resumes possession of the premises, qualifiedly and conditionally.

  6. Onal v. BP Amoco Corp.

    275 F. Supp. 2d 650 (E.D. Pa. 2003)   Cited 15 times
    Holding under Pennsylvania law that β€œabsent an acceleration clause, a Pennsylvania landlord, provided that he remains out of possession, may collect rents only in installments as they accrue.... Therefore, [the landlord] is entitled to collect only those rents and other payments that had accrued under the lease as of the time of trial.”

    In re Blatstein, No. Civ. A. 97-3739, 1997 WL 560119, at *10 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 26, 1997) (Padova, J.). Whether a landlord accepts a tenant's surrender requires a determination of the landlord's intent, and, as such, is ultimately a question of fact for the jury. Id. (citing Brill v. Haifetz, 44 A.2d 311, 313 ( Pa. Super. 1945) Against this background, Amoco contends that Onal accepted its surrender of the property, and that its duty to pay rents was concomitantly discharged, on the theory that Onal's actions in listing the property for rent on several occasions was tantamount to his repossessing it from Amoco, i.e., to his taking a position adverse to a reoccupation of the property by Amoco and inconsistent with a potential renewal of their landlord-tenant relationship.

  7. Flanagan v. Junior Realty Company

    179 A.2d 573 (R.I. 1962)

    The trial justice in his decision found that defendant had failed to sustain the burden of proof imposed upon it to show that there was a surrender of the premises on the part of plaintiff. See Brill v. Haifetz, 158 Pa. Super. 158. He did find, however, that defendant's eviction of plaintiff was justified by reason of a breach on plaintiff's part of at least two of the covenants set out in the lease. In this respect he specifically found that plaintiff, in failing to pay for the water supplied to the hotel, had breached the provisions of par. 2 of the lease in which he covenants to "pay all taxes, charges and water rates * * *.

  8. Trizechahn Gateway v. Titus

    2007 Pa. Super. 196 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2007)   Cited 15 times

    According to appellants' argument, inasmuch as Trizechahn relet the master lease space in a way that was hostile to appellants, Trizechahn accepted appellants' surrender of the master lease and relieved them of their obligations. Appellants' brief at 46, citing Brill v.Haifetz, 158 Pa.Super. 158, 44 A.2d 311, 313 (1945). ΒΆ 30

  9. Stonehedge Square v. Movie Merchants

    454 Pa. Super. 468 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1996)   Cited 39 times
    Holding landlords have no duty to mitigate damages under Pennsylvania law

    The burden is on the tenant to show by clear and convincing evidence that the landlord's actions constituted acceptance of the tenant's surrender. SeeBrill v. Haifetz, 158 Pa. Super. 158, 162, 44 A.2d 311, 313 (1945). It must be shown that the landlord made some "unequivocal act" that would constitute acceptance of the tenant's surrender.

  10. Wilson Laundry Co. v. Joos

    189 A.2d 917 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1963)   Cited 7 times

    There was no such evidence in this case. In Brill v. Haifetz, 158 Pa. Super. 158, 44 A.2d 311, we quoted with approval what was said in the case of Ralphv. Deiley, 293 Pa. 90, 94, 141 A. 640, "that the burden of showing an acceptance of a surrender is on the lessee `and is primarily a question of the landlord's intention. It is usually a question of fact for the jury (Breuckmann v. Twibill, 89 Pa. 58), but the evidence may be such as to make it one of law for the courts.'" "Taking possession, repairing, advertising the house to rent, are all acts in the interest and for the benefit of the tenant, and do not discharge him from his covenant to pay the rent."