Brown v. DuBois
Marion Municipal Court
532 N.E.2d 223 (1988)
- Written by Eric Cervone, LLM
Facts
DuBois (defendant) was a tenant of Brown’s (plaintiff). DuBois operated a business out of the space he rented from Brown. DuBois had installed wall-to-wall carpet in his space. The carpet was attached to the floor by strips that were nailed to the floor. When DuBois’s lease ended, he removed the carpeting, with little difficulty. Brown brought suit, arguing that the carpeting was a fixture of the property and thus could not be removed by DuBois. Although the removal caused some damage to the floor of the building, Brown did not show that the removal caused any economic loss. The court found that the carpet was added by DuBois to enhance the appearance and comfort of the property. The court also found that any economic gain DuBois received from keeping the carpet was minimal. Finally, the court found that both parties assumed at the beginning of the lease that the original floor of the building would have to be repaired or covered before DuBois could open for business. The lease stipulated that Brown would be willing to pay for repairs to the floor. The case was heard in state municipal court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Rogers, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
