Case Law Summaries

Bachenberg v. Weston

• Opinion Date: August 29, 2001
• Real Property Law
• E-Mail

LANDLORD-TENANT; EVICTION—Where a landlord cannot show that its tenant’s residential use of the leased property was merely incidental to the tenant’s commercial use of the property, the tenancy is treated as a residential one, subject to the Anti-Eviction Act.

A landlord sought to evict its tenant so that the landlord could demolish its building. If the tenant was a residential tenant, the Anti-Eviction Act would require eighteen months’ notice prior to the institution of an action for possession. Here, the tenant received less than three months’ notice. On appeal, the Court needed to determine whether the tenant was a residential tenant or a commercial tenant. The property measured over three and one-half acres and was zoned commercial. Residential use was apparently permitted. Structures on the property consisted of an old barn and a three-story building, part of which contained the tenant’s living quarters. The tenant had been living on the property pursuant to an oral month-to-month lease and the details of the initial lease were very sparse. The tenant testified that when he entered into the lease, “I was going to live there. I mean that would have been my number one priority. And I could have my business there.” The tenant operated some form of repair business, but the record provided very few details about that business. While business vehicles were stored on the property, it wasn’t clear as to whether customers came to the tenant or the tenant went to his customers. The tenant represented himself as a handyman who “went around and did repairs for individuals.” The tenant received his mail at the location, lived there with his children, and, “for all practical purposes live[d] there on a daily basis. When the property owner purchased the premises at a bankruptcy sale, he was aware of the tenancy. Although the parties argued respectively that the term “residential tenant,” should be narrow or broadly construed, the Court found that the record amply supported a finding that the premises were rented to the tenant for residential purposes. It was insufficient to infer that the tenant was a commercial tenant because it had only one checking account used for both personal and business transactions. Basically, the Court stated that “[o]n the facts available, there was no basis to conclude that the residential tail was wagging the commercial dog.” It could not conclude that the residential use was merely incidental to a significant commercial use of the property. As such, the tenant was entitled to eighteen months’ notice of the intended demolition.

Copyright ©2003. Meislik & Meislik. All rights reserved.