Crechale & Polles, Inc. v. Smith, 295 So. 2d 275 (1974) p425.

landlord tenant law

• P entered into a five year lease with D.
• he met with the landlord to try to extend his lease a few months because the building he was going to move into was not quite ready.
• Smith said Crechale said he was trying to sell the building, but he could stay in it until sold or until the other building was ready
• Crechale says he told Smith he was trying to sell the building and he did not want to get involved in any month to month rent
• Smith stayed in the building and paid several more months of rent

The District Court awarded complainants $1,750 in back rent payment and $760 for damages as well as costs incurred in the proceeding. Appellant files this appeal based on this judgement.

Is appellant entitled to require appellees to pay rent for a new term of the rental contract as a holdover tenant?

Once a certain type of lease is accepted, it cannot be changed in order to recover lost rent.

The appellant is not entitled to require appellees to pay rent for a new term of the rental contract as a holdover tenant.

The acceptance of the rent checks show the establishment of a month to month lease. Once a landlord elects to accept monthly checks for rent due, he in effect agrees to an extension of the lease n on a month-to-month basis. The appellant could not at a later date change the election of the month-to-month lease so as to hold the appellees as tenants for a new term.