## Facts

- John Arbenz, Sr. (landlord) leased a brick building and related lot space in Wheeling to Exley, Watkins & Co. (tenant) by a written instrument that was not under seal.
- The writing stated a term of five years and three months, beginning January 1, 1896 and ending March 31, 1902, at an annual rent of $700, payable in monthly installments (with rent to commence April 1, 1896).
- The tenant took possession in early January 1896 and paid rent monthly while occupying the premises.
- On September 15, 1898, a fire totally destroyed the building.
- The tenant paid the September and October 1898 rent installments, and with the October payment sent Arbenz a letter dated October 31, 1898 stating that it had vacated the premises destroyed by the fire and “hereby surrender[ed] possession.”
- In the first rent action, Arbenz recovered $700 for rent from November 1, 1898 through October 31, 1899; on appeal (a prior case between the same parties), the court held the unsealed writing did not create the stated term of years but created a tenancy from year to year, and it held the October 31 letter did not operate as a notice to quit so as to defeat rent through November 1, 1899.
- In this case, filed August 1, 1903, Arbenz sued in assumpsit for additional rent for November 1, 1899 through December 31, 1902 (38 months).
- The trial court awarded Arbenz only $148.15 for November and December 1899 and ruled that no rent was recoverable after December 31, 1899 because the year-to-year tenancy ended at that time by virtue of the October 31, 1898 letter (and related conduct).
- Arbenz sought review of the limitation on rent after December 31, 1899.

## Issues

1. Whether the tenant’s October 31, 1898 letter stating it had vacated and “hereby surrender[ed] possession,” without naming any termination date, was a sufficient notice to quit to end a year-to-year tenancy at the close of a current rental year.
2. Whether the tenant’s letter, together with its actual vacation of the premises and its defense in the earlier rent suit, could terminate the year-to-year tenancy as of December 31, 1899 and bar rent accruing afterward.
3. What a notice to quit must contain to terminate a tenancy from year to year.

## Decision

- The court treated the parties’ relationship as a tenancy from year to year (consistent with the earlier appeal construing the unsealed writing).
- The court held the October 31, 1898 letter was not a sufficient notice to quit and did not discharge the tenant from later rent liability under a year-to-year tenancy.
- The court held that the letter did not become effective notice merely because the tenant had vacated the premises and had defended the prior rent action; those circumstances did not end the tenancy or cut off later-accruing rent.
- The court stated that notice to end a tenancy from year to year must designate when the tenancy will close, either by specifying the day the current year ends or by stating that the tenancy will end at the close of a current year.
- Because the trial court denied recovery after December 31, 1899 on an erroneous view that the tenancy had ended, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with continued rent liability absent proper termination.

## Legal Principles

- A written lease not under seal that purports to grant a multi-year term may create, instead, a tenancy from year to year rather than the stated term of years.
- To terminate a tenancy from year to year, a notice to quit must state when the tenancy will end, either by giving the last day of the current rental year or by stating termination will occur at the end of a current year.
- A tenant’s letter stating it has vacated and “surrender[s] possession,” without fixing the termination time required for a year-to-year tenancy, is not sufficient notice to quit.
- Actual vacation of the premises, and taking a position in related litigation disputing rent, does not supply the missing termination date or otherwise convert an indefinite “surrender” statement into an effective notice to quit.

## Conclusion

The court reversed the judgment that limited the landlord’s recovery to rent through December 31, 1899, holding that the unsealed lease created a year-to-year tenancy and that the tenant’s October 31, 1898 “surrender” letter—alone or combined with the tenant’s move-out and prior litigation defense—did not constitute a valid notice to quit because it failed to specify that the tenancy would end at the close of a current rental year; therefore, rent could continue to accrue until the tenancy was properly terminated.


Arbenz v. Exley, Watkins & Co., 50 S.E. 813 (1905)