## Facts

- A landlord leased commercial space to S. J. Maida, Sr. (doing business as a shoe-repair shop) for a 10-year term beginning July 1, 1963, at $550 per month.
- The lease provided that if Maida abandoned the premises, the landlord could relet and hold Maida liable for (1) any rent deficiency and (2) reletting expenses (including renovation).
- Maida stopped paying rent and, about three months later, abandoned the premises.
- The landlord sought a replacement tenant and, nearly one year after abandonment, relet the premises at $800 per month.
- The replacement lease ended about 18 months before the scheduled end of Maida’s lease term, but included an option to extend for two additional years.
- The landlord sued for breach of lease, seeking unpaid rent from Maida’s default through the start of the replacement lease, plus reletting/renovation expenses, and credited rent actually received; it did not seek rent accruing after the date of trial.
- The trial court entered judgment for the landlord using that damages approach, and Maida appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether, in awarding damages limited to the period before the replacement lease began, the trial court was required to offset “future” rentals expected under the replacement lease (including potential option-period rent).
2. What measure governs a landlord’s recovery when seeking damages for rent that would accrue after trial following a tenant’s abandonment and the landlord’s reletting.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed the judgment for the landlord.
- The court held that the trial court did not err by refusing to credit Maida with rentals expected to be received in the future under the replacement lease (including the extension option) because the landlord did not claim future-rent damages.
- The court stated that if a landlord seeks future rentals, the measure is the excess, if any, of the present value of future rent over the value of possession for the remainder of the term.
- The court rejected the contention that a higher replacement rent necessarily establishes the value of the unexpired term at that higher rate.

## Legal Principles

- When a tenant abandons leased premises and the landlord seeks damages for rent that would accrue in the future, recovery is limited to the excess, if any, of the present value of future rent over the value of the landlord’s possession for the remainder of the term.
- The rent obtained in a subsequent reletting is evidence relevant to value but does not, by itself, conclusively establish the value of the unexpired term of the original lease.
- Where the landlord limits its claim to unpaid rent and reletting expenses up to the commencement of the replacement lease (and gives credit for amounts actually received), the future-rent valuation measure is not required.

## Conclusion

The court upheld a damages award for unpaid rent and reletting expenses incurred before the replacement lease began, and clarified that future-rent damages require a present-value computation offset by the value of the landlord’s regained possessory interest, with reletting rent not treated as conclusive proof of value.


Maida v. Main Bldg. of Hous., 473 S.W.2d 648 (Tex. Civ. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1971, no writ)