Linda S. Nowlin v. Lori Keaton, 03-14-00608-CV

In April 2014 Nowlin (landlord) and Keaton (tenant) signed a residential lease for 3907 Eck Lane with a $2,100 monthly rent and an acceleration clause for rent on tenant default.
Nowlin served a Notice to Vacate on June 4, 2014 alleging lease breaches and stating the tenant remained liable for rent for the full term; Keaton paid rent for June but made no further payments and remained in possession through September 5, 2014.
Nowlin filed a forcible-detainer (eviction) action in justice court on June 6, 2014; judgment in justice court (July 2) favored Keaton and Nowlin appealed to the Travis County Court at Law No. 1.
The county court tried the case to a jury on August 25, 2014; the jury found (inter alia) that Keaton did not unreasonably refuse entry for repairs and did not materially fail to pay rent timely; the court entered final judgment that Nowlin take nothing and awarded costs to Keaton.
Nowlin’s appellate brief argues: (1) the lease language permits acceleration/collection of rents for time Keaton remained in possession (July–August 2014); (2) Keaton’s reliance on Rohrt and on contract-maxim prevention doctrines is misplaced; (3) Nowlin did not terminate the lease by issuing the Notice to Vacate.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Nowlin)	Defendant's Argument (Keaton)	Held (trial court)
Whether a landlord can recover rent for possession period after issuing a notice to vacate or retaking possession when the landlord initiated termination	Lease contains an acceleration clause that makes all remaining monthly rent immediately due on tenant default or judicial eviction; Nowlin seeks rent for July–August while Keaton remained in possession	Keaton (and her brief) rely on E.J. Rohrt to argue a landlord who terminates lease cannot recover future rents	Jury and county court found for Keaton; judgment that Nowlin take nothing and that Nowlin was not entitled to rent for July–August 2014
Whether a landlord’s refusal to accept late rent or statements declining payment amount to waiver so tenant owes no further rent for period in possession	Refusal to accept late payments does not waive landlord’s right to collect delinquent rent; cases cited by Keaton (Sanderson, Sargent) are inapplicable to landlord–tenant rent obligations	Keaton argues that preventing performance (refusing to accept rent) fulfills the tenant’s obligation under contract-law prevention doctrines	Jury found Keaton did not materially fail to pay rent timely; trial court ruled for Keaton; Nowlin’s waiver argument rejected by trial outcome

E.J. Rohrt v. Kelley Mfg. Co., 349 S.W.2d 95 (Tex. 1961) (lease interpretation controls whether landlord may recover future rents after tenant default; court construed the particular lease language before it)
Dearborn Stove Co. v. Caples, 236 S.W.2d 486 (Tex. 1951) (discusses landlord remedies when lessee abandons and effect on future rent recovery)
Walling v. Christie Hobby, Inc., 54 S.W.2d 186 (Tex. Civ. App. 1932) (early articulation that general remedies depend on lease language; cited in Rohrt)
Sanderson v. Sanderson, 109 S.W.2d 744 (Tex. 1937) (prevention-of-performance doctrine in a decedent/caretaker contract context)
Sargent v. Highlite Broadcasting Co., 466 S.W.2d 866 (Tex. Civ. App.—Austin 1971) (applies prevention-of-performance principle to a commercial-contract fact pattern)