## Facts

- Samuel and Sharon Marynick leased a duplex to Brenda Bockelmann and her husband, Hermann, under a written 12-month lease.
- The lease included a holdover clause stating that if a tenant remained in possession after the term with the landlord’s consent, a “new tenancy” would be created on the same terms except it would be year-to-year and terminable on 60 days’ notice.
- Ten days before the lease term ended, Brenda moved out and did not remain in possession.
- Hermann stayed in possession after the lease expired with the landlords’ consent, becoming the holdover occupant.
- Hermann later could not pay rent; he and Samuel Marynick entered a separate loan arrangement suspending rent for seven months with repayment (with interest).
- Hermann eventually vacated while allegedly owing accrued rent, repair costs, and amounts under the loan.
- The landlords sued both Brenda and Hermann for unpaid rent, repair costs, and the loan balance; the trial court imposed liability on Hermann but denied recovery against Brenda.
- The court of appeals held Brenda not liable on the loan but liable for rent and repairs incurred during Hermann’s holdover; Brenda sought review.

## Issues

1. Whether the lease’s holdover clause and Texas holdover law treated Hermann’s post-term occupancy as a new tenancy or a continuation of the original joint lease.
2. Whether a cotenant who vacated before lease expiration can be held liable for rent and repair obligations arising during the other cotenant’s landlord-consented holdover occupancy.

## Decision

- The Texas Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals to the extent it imposed liability on Brenda for rent and repairs during Hermann’s holdover period.
- The Court held the holdover created a new tenancy between Hermann and the landlords, for which Hermann alone was liable.
- The Court rendered judgment that the landlords take nothing from Brenda on the rent-and-repairs claims associated with the holdover tenancy.

## Legal Principles

- A tenant who remains after lease termination is a tenant at sufferance; with the landlord’s election/consent, the parties may treat the occupancy as a tenancy on specified terms.
- When a lease provides that landlord-consented holding over creates a “new tenancy,” the holdover is a new contractual tenancy rather than an extension or renewal of the expired lease.
- Cotenancy under a lease exists only while the parties share rights of possession under the same lease; when the lease term ends, the cotenancy (and joint lease-based obligations) ends.
- Texas law does not presume that one cotenant’s unilateral holdover binds a non-possessing cotenant to the holdover tenancy’s rent or damage obligations.

## Conclusion

Because the lease defined a landlord-consented holdover as a new tenancy and Brenda had vacated before the term ended, she was not a party to Hermann’s post-expiration tenancy and could not be held liable for rent or repairs accruing during his holdover occupancy.


Bockelmann v. Marynick, 788 S.W.2d 569 (Tex. 1990)