Berg v. Wiley

Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1978 · Property

Propertylandlord-tenantself-help evictionwrongful evictionlandlord-tenantwrongful evictionself-helplockout

Facts

Wiley leased restaurant premises under a written lease that prohibited structural changes without written permission, required lawful operation, and allowed the lessor to retake possession if the lessee failed to meet lease conditions. After disputes over Berg's remodeling and alleged health-code violations, Wiley demanded completion of listed items by July 13, 1973, and Berg closed that day with a sign reading "Closed for Remodeling." The evidence conflicted as to whether Berg intended to vacate permanently or close temporarily to remodel, but the jury found she neither abandoned nor surrendered the premises. On July 16, while Berg was absent and without her knowledge, Wiley entered with a locksmith and police officer, changed the locks, and locked her out before the lease term expired.

Issue

Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's finding that the tenant had not abandoned or surrendered the premises, and whether the landlord's self-help lockout was wrongful as a matter of law. More specifically, the case asked whether a landlord may retake possession by changing locks on a tenant who remains in possession and disputes the landlord's claim of lease breach.

Rule

A landlord's self-help repossession under the common-law rule required both a legal entitlement to possession and peaceable means of reentry. Subsequent to this decision, however, the only lawful means to dispossess a tenant who has not abandoned or voluntarily surrendered and who claims possession adversely to a landlord's claim of breach of a written lease is by resort to judicial process.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In St. Paul, Nora Patel leased warehouse space from Summit River Properties under a written lease allowing reentry if Nora violated maintenance covenants. After accusing Nora of serious lease breaches, the landlord waited until she left for a trade show and had a locksmith change the locks without filing any court action. Nora had repeatedly told the landlord she intended to stay and dispute the alleged defaults.

Is the landlord's lockout lawful?

Explanation. The majority adopted the modern rule that the only lawful means to dispossess a tenant who has not abandoned or voluntarily surrendered and who claims possession adversely to the landlord's claim of breach of a written lease is judicial process. The lease's reentry clause does not permit lockout by self-help in those circumstances, and the opinion rejected the idea that absence alone makes the entry lawful.