## Facts

- A seller of a dental practice leased the clinic premises to the buyer-tenant for five years, limited to use “operating a dental practice.”
- The tenant also leased part of the basement for storage; the landlord retained possession of an adjacent basement area.
- The landlord’s family began using the adjacent basement as an office, workshop, and living quarters and repeatedly entered the dental office after hours, raising concerns about sterilization and confidentiality.
- Construction activity in and around the building created persistent noise and disruptions; exterior dirt piles in the parking area attracted children and interfered with patient care.
- Additional conditions included an electrical hazard from basement wiring, fumes from a propane heater entering office vents and sickening staff and patients, and basement electricity usage billed to the tenant’s meter.
- The tenant repeatedly complained and sought correction; the landlord responded slowly and inadequately.
- The tenant vacated before lease end, asserting constructive eviction.
- Upon leaving, the tenant removed wall-mounted dental storage cabinets purchased as part of the practice assets, leaving the premises in commercially reasonable condition.
- The landlord sued for breach of lease and for the value of the removed cabinets.

## Issues

1. Whether the landlord’s actions and tolerated conditions substantially interfered with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment and rendered the premises unfit for the leased dental-office use, constituting constructive eviction and justifying termination.
2. Whether the tenant waived a constructive-eviction claim by remaining in possession for a period while attempting to obtain correction of the conditions.
3. Whether the wall-mounted dental cabinets were removable trade fixtures owned by the tenant.

## Decision

- The judgment for the tenant was affirmed.
- The court upheld the finding of constructive eviction based on the cumulative interference and the landlord’s failure to correct conditions within a reasonable time.
- The tenant’s early departure was a justified termination, not a breach of the lease.
- The tenant did not waive constructive eviction by staying while seeking cure.
- The dental cabinets were removable trade fixtures; removal was lawful where done without material damage and the premises were left in commercially reasonable condition.

## Legal Principles

- Constructive eviction occurs when a landlord’s substantial interference with quiet enjoyment effectively forces a tenant to leave; the tenant may treat the lease as terminated if the premises become unfit for the contractually specified use.
- A tenant does not waive constructive-eviction rights merely by remaining temporarily in possession while giving the landlord a reasonable opportunity to cure and pressing for correction.
- Trade fixtures installed or used for the tenant’s business remain the tenant’s property and are removable at the end of the tenancy if removal can be accomplished without material damage and the premises are left in commercially reasonable condition.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed that substantial, ongoing interference attributable to the landlord can amount to constructive eviction in a commercial lease, allowing termination without breach, and that business-specific cabinets treated as trade fixtures may be removed when the tenant vacates without materially harming the premises.


Pfeifle v. Tanabe, 620 N.W.2d 167 (N.D. 2000)