Pfeifle v. Tanabe
North Dakota Supreme Court
620 N.W.2d 167 (2000)
- Written by Rich Walter, JD
Facts
Leslie Pfeifle (plaintiff) sold her late husband’s dental practice and leased his clinic to Dr. Curtis Tanabe (defendant). Dr. Pfeifle’s wall-mounted cabinets for storing dental implements were included in the price Tanabe paid for the practice. Over the next two years, Pfeifle initiated and tolerated conduct that threatened to disrupt Tanabe’s practice. Pfeifle was slow to respond to Tanabe’s repeated complaints about this conduct, which continued until Tanabe terminated the lease. Tanabe unscrewed the storage cabinets and took them with him when he vacated the premises, which he left in commercially reasonable condition. Pfeifle sued Tanabe for breaching the lease. The trial court accepted Tanabe’s affirmative defense of constructive eviction, finding that the cumulative effect of Pfeifle’s conduct deprived Tanabe of the quiet enjoyment of the premises, made the premises unfit for use as a dental office, and justified Tanabe’s breach of the lease. Pfeifle appealed the trial court’s entry of judgment for Tanabe to the North Dakota Supreme Court. After upholding the trial court’s finding as to constructive eviction, the court turned its attention to (1) Tanabe’s removal of the storage cabinets and (2) whether Tanabe waived his right to terminate the lease by remaining on the property following his complaints.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Kapsner, 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. 46,400 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.
