## Facts

- A landlord leased adjoining commercial premises to a tenant for a one-year term ending May 31, 1984, with an option to renew for an additional two years.
- The lease required the tenant to provide written notice of renewal at least 60 days before expiration and included a clause describing notice by certified or registered mail to specified addresses.
- The tenant routinely hand-delivered rent checks next door at the landlord’s business; if the landlord was unavailable, he left checks with employees at a front desk.
- The landlord acknowledged that the tenant had previously left rent with employees and that the landlord had hand-delivered notices to the tenant.
- The tenant testified that within the 60-day period he prepared a written renewal letter and hand-delivered it in an envelope to an employee at the landlord’s business, consistent with prior rent-delivery practice.
- The landlord denied receiving any written renewal notice.
- After the lease term ended, the tenant remained in possession and tendered June rent; the landlord refused the payment and filed an unlawful detainer action for restitution of the premises.

## Issues

1. Whether evidence of the parties’ course of dealing was sufficient to allow a jury to find the landlord’s employees had implied or apparent authority to receive the tenant’s written renewal notice.
2. If the lease was not renewed, whether the tenant’s post-expiration possession (after the landlord refused rent) created a month-to-month tenancy requiring 30 days’ notice to quit, or a tenancy at sufferance requiring no such notice.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
- It reversed the directed verdict on the renewal-notice issue, holding the agency question should have gone to the jury.
- It affirmed the determination that, absent a valid renewal, the tenant’s holdover after the landlord refused rent was a tenancy at sufferance and did not require 30 days’ notice to quit.

## Legal Principles

- A directed verdict is improper when reasonable inferences and credibility determinations could support the nonmoving party’s position.
- Whether an agency relationship exists, including implied or apparent authority, is ordinarily a fact question for the trier of fact when supported by evidence of course of dealing.
- A landlord’s repeated acceptance of rent delivered through employees can support a finding that those employees were authorized to receive communications related to the tenancy, including renewal notices, despite formal notice provisions.
- A holdover tenant becomes a month-to-month tenant only with the landlord’s consent, commonly shown by acceptance of rent after expiration.
- When the landlord refuses post-expiration rent and does not consent to continued occupancy, the tenant is a tenant at sufferance and is not entitled to statutory 30-day notice to quit before an unlawful detainer action.

## Conclusion

The court required a jury determination on whether the landlord’s employees were authorized to receive the tenant’s renewal notice, but held that if no renewal occurred, the landlord’s refusal of rent made the tenant a tenant at sufferance who could be removed without a 30-day notice to quit.


Dvoracek v. Gillies, 363 N.W.2d 99 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985)