Northside Station Associates v. Maddry
North Carolina Court of Appeals
413 S.E.2d 319 (1992)
- Written by Samantha Arena, JD
Facts
Northside Station Associates (Northside) (plaintiff) leased property to Stanley and Margaret Hryniuk for a term ending on June 30, 1989. Under the terms of the agreement, if the tenant remains in possession after the lease expires and does not execute a new lease, he becomes a tenant from month-to-month and must thereafter pay one-and-a-half times the rent indicated in the lease. Stanley later entered into a second agreement with Carolyn Maddry (defendant) wherein Maddry agreed to lease the property pursuant to the terms of the original agreement between Northside and the Hryniuks, for a term ending on June 30, 1989. The agreement was signed by Stanley and Maddry, but not by Margaret. When the lease term expired, Maddry remained in possession of the premises but did not execute a new lease and refused to make rent payments to Northside. Northside sued Maddry for the unpaid rent, contending that Maddry became a tenant from month-to-month under the terms of the original agreement and so was liable for one-and-a-half times the rent indicated in the lease. Maddry moved to dismiss. The trial court granted the motion, concluding that no privity of contract existed between Northside and Maddry, which would allow Northside to bring a direct action against Maddry, because the agreement between Stanley and Maddry was a sublease, and not an assignment. Northside appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Greene, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 798,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 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.