Hannan v. Dusch

• Dusch = landlord in Norfolk, Virginia = defendant
• Hannan = plaintiff = tenant
• The Plaintiff, Mr. Hannan, entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant, Mr. Dusch, for a term of 15 years (long term).
• Lease start date = New Year's Day 1928 = January 1st 1928
• When Mr. Hannan attempted to take possession of the property, he discovered that there were still tenants occupying the premises.
• Despite this, Mr. Dusch refused to evict the former tenants.

Hannan sued Dusch in the Circuit Court for the City of Norfolk

Hannan lost in the trial court

• In the absence of an express covenant to deliver possession of leased premises to a tenant, must a landlord act to remove hold-over tenants or other trespassers?
• The central question was whether a landlord, in the absence of an express covenant, is legally obligated to deliver possession of the property to the lessee (tenant).

• Dusch argued that it was Hannan’s responsibility to ensure that the property was available for possession.
• Chief Justice Prentis contended that because Hannan was leasing for 15 years, he was essentially the owner. Thus, Prentis claimed that the lessee was responsible for evicting squatters.

• Chief Justice Prentis: No. The lessor (landlord) need only deliver the legal right to the leasehold.
• Under the American rule, absent an explicit covenant, the lessor has no duty to deliver possession of the property.
• While there may be an ethical duty for the lessor to oust old tenants, the statutory remedy for eviction rested on the lessee.

Affirmed

The justices of the Virginia Supreme Court contradicted the English Rule (there is an implied covenant that a landlord deliver actual possession of a leased premises).

• Today, most American jurisdictions won't abide by the precedent set in this case.