Dvoracek v. Gillies
Minnesota Court of Appeals
363 N.W.2d 99 (1985)
- Written by Jose Espejo , JD
Facts
Stephen Gillies (defendant) leased commercial space from Cleo Dvoracek (plaintiff). Dvoracek owned the adjoining premises and employed about 18 persons. Gillies and Dvoracek entered into a one-year lease expiring on May 31, 1984, with an option to renew for a two-year period and a right of first refusal for an additional two-year period. The lease required Gillies to give Dvoracek written renewal notice at least 60 days before the lease expired. The lease required written notices be mailed (certified or registered) to both Dvoracek’s and Gillies’s addresses listed on the lease, which for Dvoracek was the adjoining premises. On March 16, 1984, Gillies dictated a letter to renew the lease. Gillies’s secretary typed and notarized the correspondence. Gillies went into Dvoracek’s business to hand deliver the correspondence and left it with an employee at the front desk, as he customarily did with rent payments. On May 1, Dvoracek received a letter from Gillies requesting repair of the air-conditioning unit. Dvoracek’s attorney responded to the letter, advising Gillies that no lease renewal had been received and that the lease would be terminated upon expiration. Gillies attempted to pay rent for June, but the payment was refused by Dvoracek. Dvoracek filed suit for unlawful detainer. The trial court directed a verdict for Dvoracek finding that Gillies had given inadequate notice to renew the lease. Gillies appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Lansing, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.