Berg v. Wiley

Facts

On November 11, 1970, Wiley, the landlord, signed a written lease letting land and a building in Osseo, Minnesota, for use as a restaurant. The term began December 1, 1970, and was not due to expire until December 1, 1975. The tenant had to make no changes to the building structure without Wiley's written authorization and had to run the restaurant in a lawful and prudent manner. If the tenant failed to meet the lease conditions, Wiley could retake possession at his option. Berg took over the lease in early 1971 and opened her restaurant on May 1, 1971. She later assigned the lease to her corporation, and she alone acted for it. Wiley objected that Berg kept remodeling without written permission and ran the restaurant in disrepair, with alleged health code violations. His attorney's letter of June 29, 1973 demanded that eight remodeling items be finished by July 13, 1973, or Wiley would retake possession. On July 13 Berg dismissed her employees and closed the restaurant. The evidence conflicted on whether she meant to leave for good or to close for about 1 month to remodel. Berg testified that Wiley had tried to change the locks that day but left them when she objected. On July 16, 1973, on what he said was his attorney's advice, Wiley came with a police officer and a locksmith and changed the locks while Berg was away. The premises were re-let on or about August 1, 1973.

Issues

1. Was the evidence sufficient to support the jury's finding that the tenant had neither abandoned nor surrendered the leased premises before the landlord locked her out?
2. Was the landlord's self-help lockout of a tenant who claimed possession against his claim that she had breached the lease wrongful as a matter of law?

Holding

The evidence supported the jury's finding of no abandonment or surrender. Wiley's lockout of Berg was wrongful as a matter of law because he did not use judicial remedies against a tenant holding possession adversely to his claim of breach. The court would have found the lockout nonpeaceable under the common-law rule too.