Cheetah Properties 1, LLC v. Panther Pressure Testers, Inc.
2016 ND 102
| N.D. | 2016Background
- Cheetah Properties (landlord) and Panther Pressure Testers (tenant) had a commercial lease from April 15, 2014 to December 31, 2014 with an automatic one-year renewal provision unless either party gave written notice at least 60 days before termination. Rent was due monthly; lease allowed landlord to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees on tenant default.
- Cheetah delivered a 60-day notice on October 17, 2014 not to extend beyond December 31, 2014. Panther requested a four-month extension; Cheetah instead offered a one-month extension to January 31, 2015 if Panther (1) brought rent current and (2) timely paid January rent, requesting written confirmation.
- Panther had unpaid November and December rent; on December 31, 2014 Panther delivered two $22,000 checks which Panther believed covered December and January, but Cheetah applied them to November and December. Panther later tendered a third $22,000 check for January which Cheetah held but did not deposit.
- Cheetah filed an eviction action January 19, 2015 seeking possession, delinquent rent, double statutory damages for willful holdover under N.D.C.C. § 32-03-28, and attorneys’ fees under the lease and statutes. Panther vacated by January 31, 2015.
- The district court awarded Cheetah possession, $22,000 for January rent, and $8,200 for delinquent rent/fees, but denied double damages under § 32-03-28 (finding holdover not willful) and denied Cheetah’s post-judgment motion for attorneys’ fees without legal analysis.
- On appeal the Supreme Court affirmed the no-double-damages ruling but reversed the denial of attorneys’ fees and remanded for the district court to address the legal arguments and provide analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether tenant’s holdover was "willful" under N.D.C.C. § 32-03-28 allowing double damages | Cheetah: Panther knowingly held over after lease expiration and notice; statutory double damages are warranted | Panther: Holding over was inadvertent/confused by communications and conditional extension; not willful | Held: Not willful. Court affirms district court—evidence supports a non‑willful, inadvertent holdover. |
| Whether Cheetah was entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees under lease/statute | Cheetah: Prevailing party; lease and statutes authorize fees; district court should award fees | Panther: Eviction is summary; Cheetah did not prove a default warranting fees; district court discretion | Held: Reverse denial. Remand for district court to consider legal arguments and determine entitlement with supporting analysis. |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. Kulig, 696 N.W.2d 521 (N.D. 2005) (willfulness is generally a fact question)
- Muldoon v. Workforce Safety & Ins. Fund, 823 N.W.2d 761 (N.D. 2012) (defining "willful" as intentional, not inadvertent)
- Fettig v. Workforce Safety & Ins., 728 N.W.2d 301 (N.D. 2007) (same definition of "willful" for civil penalties)
- Forbes v. Workforce Safety & Ins. Fund, 722 N.W.2d 536 (N.D. 2006) (defining "willful" as intentional conduct)
- Van Klootwyk v. Arman, 477 N.W.2d 590 (N.D. 1991) (statutory construction—plain, ordinary meaning of words)
- Moore v. Kuljis, 207 So. 2d 604 (Miss. 1967) (double damages inappropriate where tenant had tenable basis to remain)
- Pleasure Driveway & Park Dist. v. Jones, 367 N.E.2d 111 (Ill. App. Ct. 1977) (no double damages when bona fide dispute over possession exists)
- Johnson v. Taylor, 246 S.W.2d 121 (Ark. 1952) (treble/double damages not warranted when tenant in bona fide belief of right to remain)
- Radspinner v. Charlesworth, 346 N.W.2d 727 (N.D. 1984) (appellate review limited when district court fails to state legal basis for conclusion)