Village Commons v. Marion County Prosecutor's Office

Indiana Court of Appeals · Property

PropertyLandlord-TenantEvictionLease Remediesactual evictionconstructive evictionleaseexclusive remedy clause

Facts

The MCPO leased basement space in the Victoria Centre for its Grand Jury Division and evidence storage, and Landlord assumed the lease after purchasing the building. Beginning in 2001 and continuing into January 2003, the premises experienced repeated water intrusions, leaks, sewage problems, mold findings, and damage to evidence and office areas, while Landlord declined some recommended remediation and advised the MCPO to move items away from vulnerable areas. The lease stated that on landlord default the tenant could sue for injunctive relief or damages but could not terminate the lease or withhold, set off, or abate rent. After major recurring water problems, including instructions effectively limiting use of vulnerable space and a major January 28, 2003 intrusion, the MCPO vacated and stopped paying rent; Landlord later sued for unpaid future rent.

Issue

Did the lease's exclusive-remedy clause prevent the MCPO from asserting wrongful eviction so that it remained liable for rent, were the trial court's findings of actual and constructive eviction clearly erroneous, and did the lease's one-year time-to-sue clause bar the MCPO's defenses and counterclaim when Landlord filed suit?

Rule

A lease may unambiguously restrict a tenant from terminating the lease or withholding, setting off, or abating rent upon landlord default, but such a clause does not prevent the legal consequences of actual or constructive eviction. Actual eviction occurs when the tenant is deprived of possession of a material part of the premises, and constructive eviction occurs when the landlord's act or omission materially deprives the tenant of beneficial use or enjoyment; if the tenant abandons within a reasonable time after constructive eviction, future rent obligations are extinguished. A contractual tenant time-to-sue clause should not be interpreted to produce the absurd result of barring wrongful eviction defenses and counterclaims when the landlord initiates the action.

🔒

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 Columbus, Ohio, Cedar Row Properties leased a 12,000-square-foot warehouse to Nina Patel for furniture storage. After repeated roof failures, Cedar Row sent Nina a letter directing her to stop using the back third of the warehouse because that area would remain vulnerable to water intrusion until further notice, and Nina continued paying rent for one month before vacating the building.

If Cedar Row later sues Nina for rent accruing after she vacated, which is the best answer?

Explanation. Actual eviction occurs when the tenant is deprived of occupancy of some material part of the leased premises. Under the majority opinion, a lease may bar the tenant from terminating or withholding rent as a remedy for breach, but that does not stop the landlord's own acts from producing the legal consequence of eviction. Because deprivation of a material portion of the premises can extinguish future rent, the landlord cannot recover rent accruing after the eviction.