264 N.W.2d 145
In November 1970, Wiley Enterprises, Inc. and Rodney A. Wiley executed a written lease agreement with the predecessor in interest of A Family Affair Restaurant, Inc., letting land and a building in Osseo, Minnesota, for use as a restaurant for a five-year term beginning December 1, 1970.1 The lease required the tenant to bear all costs of repairs and remodeling, to make no changes in the building structure without prior written authorization, and to operate the restaurant in a lawful and prudent manner, while reserving to the lessor the right to retake possession should the lessee fail to meet the lease conditions.2
In early 1971, Kathleen Berg took assignment of the lease, and on May 1, 1971, she opened A Family Affair Restaurant on the premises; in January 1973, Berg incorporated the restaurant and assigned her interest to A Family Affair Restaurant, Inc., continuing to act as sole shareholder for the tenant.3 Strained relations developed over Berg's remodeling without written permission and alleged health code violations, leading Wiley's attorney to send a June 29, 1973 letter charging breaches and demanding completion of eight remodeling items by July 13, 1973, or Wiley would retake possession, while a June 13 inspection by the Minnesota Department of Health produced an order for changes to be completed by July 15, 1973.4
On July 13, 1973, Berg closed the restaurant at the end of business, dismissed employees, and placed a sign saying "Closed for Remodeling"; that day Wiley attempted to change the locks but left after Berg asserted her right to possession, and later that evening Wiley was observed peering into the window and pounding on the back door, leading to police mediation and an agreement to preserve the status quo until July 16.5 On July 16, 1973, Wiley, accompanied by a police officer and a locksmith, entered the premises in Berg's absence and changed the locks; Berg found herself locked out later that day, the premises were re-let to another tenant on or about August 1, 1973, and Berg brought a damage action against Wiley on July 27, 1973, seeking damages for wrongful eviction among other claims, after which the jury found Berg had neither abandoned nor surrendered the premises and awarded her damages for lost profits and loss of chattels while the trial court found the lockout wrongful as a matter of law.6
Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s finding that the tenant did not abandon or surrender the premises?7
In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a jury's special verdict, the court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party and determines whether the verdict is supported by sufficient evidence.8
Yes. The evidence amply supports the jury’s finding of no abandonment or surrender of the premises.9 While the evidence bearing upon Berg’s intent was strongly contradictory, the jury could reasonably have concluded, based on Berg’s testimony and supporting circumstantial evidence, that she intended to retain possession, closing temporarily to remodel.10 Thus, the lockout cannot be excused on ground that Berg abandoned or surrendered the leasehold.11
The evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s finding that the tenant did not abandon or surrender the premises.12
Whether the trial court erred in finding the landlord’s reentry forcible and wrongful as a matter of law?13
A landlord may not employ self-help measures to retake possession from a tenant in possession who has not abandoned or surrendered the premises; instead, the landlord must resort to judicial process to enforce any right to possession.14
No. Wiley, well aware that Berg was asserting her right to possession, retook possession in her absence by picking the locks and locking her out.15 The record shows a history of vigorous dispute and keen animosity between the parties.16 Upon this record, the court can only conclude that the singular reason why actual violence did not erupt at the moment of Wiley’s changing of the locks was Berg’s absence.17 Her subsequent self-restraint and resort to judicial process prevented any breach of the peace.18
The court holds that the only lawful means to dispossess a tenant who has not abandoned nor voluntarily surrendered, but who claims possession adversely to a landlord’s claim of breach of a written lease, is by resort to judicial process.19
The trial court did not err in finding the landlord’s reentry forcible and wrongful as a matter of law.20