Curt Pearman d/b/a Greenwood Professional Park v. T. Ryan Jackson and Kristin M. Jackson
25 N.E.3d 772
Ind. Ct. App.2015Background
- Pearman (landlord) and the Jacksons (tenants) signed a 3-year lease with an option to renew for three successive 3-year terms, exercisable by written notice at least six months before term expiration; lease also contained a monthly "holding over" provision if tenant remained and rent was accepted.
- The initial term ended in December 2010 (a scrivener’s-error addendum corrected term dates); the Jacksons decided not to exercise the 3-year renewal, but continued occupying and paying monthly rent after the term expired.
- On March 16, 2011 the Jacksons sent certified mail notice that they would terminate their holdover as of May 31, 2011.
- Pearman sued for breach, alleging the Jacksons had renewed the lease for another 3-year term (or otherwise breached by abandoning early) and that written renewal notice was waived by acceptance of rent.
- The trial court granted the Jacksons partial summary judgment on liability, ruling that holding over and paying rent, standing alone, did not exercise the 3‑year renewal option and that Pearman had not shown waiver of the written notice requirement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether holding over and paying rent alone constituted exercise of the lease's 3‑year renewal option or supported waiver of the written‑notice requirement | Pearman: acceptance of rent and continued occupancy evidenced renewal or waiver of the written‑notice requirement | Jacksons: they declined to renew, instead held over month‑to‑month under the lease’s holding‑over clause and gave proper termination notice | Court: Holding over and paying rent, by itself, does not exercise the 3‑year renewal option; Pearman failed to designate sufficient evidence of waiver, so summary judgment for Jacksons affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Hughley v. State, 15 N.E.3d 1000 (Ind. 2014) (standard of review and burdens on summary judgment in Indiana)
- Rosi v. Bus. Furniture Corp., 615 N.E.2d 431 (Ind. 1993) (requirement to specifically designate evidence for summary judgment)
- Filip v. Block, 879 N.E.2d 1076 (Ind. 2008) (specificity required when designating deposition excerpts for summary judgment)
- Carsten v. Eickhoff, 323 N.E.2d 664 (Ind. Ct. App. 1975) (distinguishing effect of holding over for an "option to extend" vs an "option to renew")
- Powers v. City of Lafayette, 622 N.E.2d 1311 (Ind. Ct. App. 1993) (holding over and paying rent does not by itself prove exercise of renewal option absent evidence of waiver)
- Haegert v. Univ. of Evansville, 977 N.E.2d 924 (Ind. 2012) (courts enforce clear, unambiguous contract terms according to plain meaning)