Linch v. McNeil Real Estate Fund VI, Ltd.
Decision Date | 03 July 1978 |
Docket Number | No. 55706,55706 |
Citation | 246 S.E.2d 718,146 Ga.App. 505 |
Parties | LINCH et al. v. McNEIL REAL ESTATE FUND VI, LTD., et al. |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Hall & Fishman, Robert W. Chestney, Atlanta, for appellants.
Rolader, Barham, Davis, Graham & McEvoy, Lawrence J. McEvoy, Jr., Charles T. Harrison, III, Atlanta, for appellees.
In this landlord-tenant dispute, appellants contend the trial court erroneously determined that they were tenants at will with an obligation to pay $460 per month, the attested-to reasonable rental value of the apartment they rented from appellee. Appellants contend that, instead, they were tenants under a written lease requiring them to pay only a rent of $400 per month. We agree with appellants' contention and affirm the trial court's judgment on the condition that the amounts disbursed to appellee in excess of $400 per month be refunded to appellants. 1
The form contract governing appellants' lease, prepared by appellee's predecessor in title, provided: above. Other provisions of the lease spoke of "the original term of this lease" and "any extant renewal thereof." Appellants occupied the apartment, paying $400 per month in rent, from December 1, 1970, to November 30, 1976, and on the latter date, appellants received written notice that appellee's predecessor in title was terminating their lease and demanding immediate possession. Appellants continued to occupy the premises, paying $400 per month and, on March 25, 1977, appellee, as the successor landlord, repeated the demand for immediate possession. On April 1, 1977, appellee filed a dispossessory warrant in the court below, which warrant alleged appellants were holding the apartment beyond the term for which it was rented them. Appellants answered that they were tenants under the terms of a lease which renewed December 1, 1976, and then remained in effect until November 30, 1977, and, that under the lease provisions, the notice given on November 30, 1976, was not effective to terminate. On April 29, 1977, at a nonjury trial, the court granted appellee a writ of possession and ordered appellants to pay rent for April in the amount of $460. The court based its decision particularly upon its conclusion of law that, on the expiration of the initial year of the lease, appellants became tenants at will. The court also ordered appellants, during the pendency of this appeal, to pay $460 per month into the registry of the court, which amount was ordered disbursed to appellee.
1. In its written recollection of the trial, the trial court stated, " The Court requested to see a copy of the Lease Contract dated February 24, 1972, between the Defendants and the former landlord, and this lease, although not introduced into evidence by either party, was considered by the Court in deciding the case." No objection...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
U.S. Enterprises, Inc. v. Mikado Custom Tailors, 63717
...of renewal on the "renewal date" is inconsistent with a truly conditional "right of first refusal." Cf. Linch v. McNeil Real Estate Fund, 146 Ga.App. 505(2), 246 S.E.2d 718 (1978); Ask Enterprises v. Johnson Model Building, 155 Ga.App. 294, 270 S.E.2d 709 (1980). Accordingly, we hold that t......
-
Crystal Blue Granite Quarries, Inc. v. McLanahan
...S.E. 1033. That the parties used the term "renewal" when referring to the stipulation is not controlling. Linch v. McNeil Real Estate Fund VI, 146 Ga.App. 505(2), 246 S.E.2d 718 (1978). Where a stipulation is called a "renewal" and the amount of rent for the additional period is not a set a......
-
Armstrong v. California Federal Sav. & Loan Ass'n
...to it constitutes a waiver of the formal tender and admission of the chart into evidence. See Linch v. McNeil Real Estate Fund VI, 146 Ga.App. 505, 507(1), 246 S.E.2d 718 (1978). 2. Appellants enumerate the general grounds, urging that the facts as found by the superior court do not support......
-
Ellis v. Brookwood Park Venture
...the use of 'renewal' is not alone controlling. See Chalkley v. Ward, 119 Ga.App. 227, 166 S.E.2d 748." Linch v. McNeil Real Estate Fund VI, LTD, 146 Ga.App. 505, 507(2), 246 S.E.2d 718. The language of the lease in the case sub judice indicates that the parties intended that a new lease be ......