Governor Claiborne Apartments, Inc. v. Attaldo

• Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: BARHAM
• Citation: Governor Claiborne Apartments, Inc. v. Attaldo, 235 So.2d 574, 256 La. 218 (La. 1970)
• Decision Date: 04 May 1970
• Docket Number: No. 50061,50061
• Parties: GOVERNOR CLAIBORNE APARTMENTS, INC. v. Joseph J. ATTALDO.

Page 574

235 So.2d 574

256 La. 218

GOVERNOR CLAIBORNE APARTMENTS, INC. v. Joseph J. ATTALDO.

No. 50061.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 4, 1970.

Rehearing Denied June 8, 1970.

Monroe & Lemann, Bat P. Sullivan, Jr., John D. Wogan, New Orleans, for plaintiff-relator.

Morphy & Freeman, A. D. Freeman, Jr., New Orleans, for defendant-appellant.

BARHAM, Justice.

In an action by Governor Claiborne Apartments, Inc., to evict Joseph J. Attaldo from a portion of a building owned by the corporation and rented by Attaldo for use as a barber shop, the trial court ordered the defendant to vacate the premises. The Court of Appeal reversed, 224 So.2d 537, and we granted certiorari.

On December 18, 1952, the plaintiff and the defendant executed a written lease for ground floor space of approximately 460 square feet. The lease was for a five-year term (January 1, 1953, to December 31, 1957) but contained an option for one renewal for an additional five years. Defendant exercised this option, and the lease was thus extended through December 31, 1962. Although there were no provisions for additional options in the lease, defendant offered in writing, before the end of the second lease period, to '* * * renew my lease for Barber Shoppe. For an additional (5) five years. Beginning Feb. 1, 1963 and ending January 31, 1967 * * *'. He received no response and continued to occupy the premises.

Seven months after the expiration date proposed in that offer, the defendant addressed another letter to the manager of Claiborne Towers, Inc., which stated: 'I wish to renew my lease for Barber Shoppe located in lobby of Claiborne Towers Inc. 1732 Canal St in the City of New Orleans La. For period beginning on the first (1) day of February 1968 and ending on the thirtyfirst (31) day of January 1972.' Again no response was given to the defendant, and he remained on the premises.

The defendant contends that his continuing occupancy of the premises and the silence of the plaintiff and its agents to his offers constituted an implied contract to lease under the same terms as the original lease agreement for two additional fixed terms. Only one circumstance other than occupancy and silence is urged as evidence of an implied contract of lease. At some time before February 1, 1968, the beginning date proposed in the defendant's second offer of renewal, the management of the building painted defendant's premises and presented him with a bill for $49.00 for the cost of painting. The Court of Appeal held on original hearing that lessee's liability for painting costs was a specific obligation of the original lease, and that plaintiff by requiring defendant to comply with a provision in the original lease impliedly accepted defendant's offer to lease. In a per curiam on rehearing that court correctly found that this was not a condition of the original lease; nevertheless, it reaffirmed its judgment because of the testimony that plaintiff's agent had demanded payment for the painting by stating that the lease required payment from the lessee. That court inferred from this that plaintiff's agent believed the written lease operative, and that such a state of mind implied an acceptance of defendant's offer.

Contracts are not presumed, and therefore the option or right to renew a lease is never presumed. The civil law has expressly recognized that occupancy of premises by a lessee after the expiration of a fixed-term lease constitutes reconduction. The Code Napoleon recognized under Articles 1738 and 1759 that a lessee's continued possession after the expiration of a lease with a fixed term operated as a continuation of the lease but for a new term of duration according to the custom of the place. Under such a reconducted lease either party could give notice of termination of the lease upon observing the delays established '* * * by the custom of the place'. C.N. Arts. 1736, 1759.

Under our Civil Code provisions based on these articles of the Code Napoleon, legal reconduction takes place when a fixed-term lease expires...