Maida v. Main Building of Houston
Court of Appeals of Texas
473 S.W.2d 648 (1971)
- Written by Rebecca Green, JD
Facts
The Main Building of Houston (Main Building) (plaintiff) leased building space to S.J. Maida (defendant). The lease was for a 10-year term starting July 1, 1963. The rent was $550 per month. The lease provided that if Maida abandoned the property, Main Building had the right to relet the property. Maida was then responsible to pay the difference in any lost rent, as well as expenses incurred in the relet. Maida stopped paying rent, and three months later, Maida abandoned the property. Main Building leased the premises to another tenant beginning almost a year later. The second tenant’s lease would terminate 18 months before Maida’s lease was to have ended, but it had an option to extend for two years. The rent for the second lease was $800 per month. Main Building sued Maida for damages. The trial court held that Maida owed unpaid rent, plus renovation expenses that Main Building incurred in reletting the property, less the rent Main Building had already received under the second lease. Maida appealed, arguing that the trial court should have also subtracted the future rent Main Building is supposed to receive under the second lease, including rent Main Building might receive under the optional two-year extension.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Tunks, 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.