## Facts

- A commercial landlord and the Smiths entered a written lease for a five-year term beginning February 7, 1964, and ending February 6, 1969, at $1,250 per month.
- As expiration approached, the Smiths sought additional time because their new building would not be ready for one to two months after the lease ended.
- The parties disputed whether they reached an oral agreement for continued occupancy and whether the landlord refused to sign a proposed 30-day written extension.
- On February 4, 1969, Smith sent a letter stating the parties had orally agreed to a monthly extension.
- On February 6, 1969, the landlord denied any extension agreement and demanded that the Smiths vacate at the lease’s end.
- The Smiths remained in possession after February 6, 1969, and the landlord accepted one additional month’s rent.
- The landlord later rejected a subsequent rent tender and attempted to treat the Smiths’ holdover as creating a new lease term.
- The landlord sued in chancery for specific performance, seeking to impose a new term on a holdover-tenancy theory; the Smiths denied liability for any new long-term term.

## Issues

1. Whether the landlord could treat the Smiths’ post-expiration possession as a holdover that bound them to a new lease term after demanding that they vacate and later accepting rent.
2. Whether the chancery court erred in awarding $1,750 in back rent and $760 in premises damages and in refusing to award rent for a new long-term term.

## Decision

- The Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed the chancery court’s decree.
- The Smiths were not liable for a new lease term as holdover tenants.
- The landlord’s acceptance of rent after expiration supported, at most, a month-to-month tenancy for the period accepted.
- The awards of $1,750 in back rent and $760 in damages were upheld.

## Legal Principles

- After lease expiration, a landlord may elect to (a) evict/treat the occupant as a trespasser or (b) treat the occupant as a tenant; inconsistent elections are not freely interchangeable.
- A landlord who unequivocally elects to treat a holdover occupant as a trespasser (e.g., by denying any extension and demanding vacancy) cannot later, without the occupant’s consent, retroactively impose tenant status to claim rent for a new long-term term.
- Acceptance of rent from a holdover occupant after expiration generally constitutes assent to a month-to-month tenancy, absent a clear contrary agreement.
- When a landlord accepts post-expiration rent, the landlord may not later recharacterize that acceptance as creating a renewed multi-year term.

## Conclusion

The court held that the landlord’s demand for vacancy followed by acceptance of post-expiration rent established only a month-to-month tenancy and barred the landlord from later imposing a new long-term holdover lease; the limited awards for back rent and property damage were affirmed.


Crechale & Polles, Inc. v. Smith, 295 So. 2d 275 (Miss. 1974)