Summary
The Oklahoma Supreme Court reviewed a certified interlocutory order in a commercial landlord-tenant dispute arising from the COVID-19 pandemic. The Court held that the tenant was entitled to present evidence supporting affirmative defenses of impossibility, impracticability, or frustration of purpose against claims for unpaid rent, and it reversed and remanded the order awarding possession and past-due rent. Separate opinions concurred in the result or dissented, emphasizing the lease's no-abatement provision and the tenant's ability to reopen.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether a commercial tenant in a forcible entry and detainer action must be allowed to present evidence supporting the affirmative defenses of impossibility, impracticability, or frustration of purpose as a basis for excusing nonpayment of rent during alleged pandemic-related impracticability.
- Whether the trial court erred by awarding past-due rent and possession without allowing the tenant to present evidence supporting that affirmative defense.
Holdings
- Because supervening impossibility is a recognized affirmative defense to nonperformance of a contract, Meng was entitled to present evidence supporting the defense. The trial court erred as a matter of law by refusing to allow that evidence.
- The interlocutory order awarding the landlords $6,400 and possession of the premises was reversed, and the cause was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.
Key quotations
“This rule is typically limited to "the situation where neither party is at fault and neither has assumed the risk."” (¶ 12)
“impossibility "means not only strict impossibility but impracticability because of extreme and unreasonable difficulty, expense, injury or loss involved."” (¶ 12)
“Because supervening impossibility is a recognized affirmative defense to nonperformance of a contract, Meng is entitled to present evidence in support of it.” (¶ 15)
Factual background
Meng leased a commercial property in August 2019 for the sole purpose of operating a massage business, and the lease prohibited other uses. After COVID-19 emerged and Oklahoma imposed emergency restrictions, Meng closed the business on March 19, 2020 after she and her sole employee became ill, and she stopped paying rent after March. When the landlords sued for unpaid rent and possession, Meng asserted that performance was excused by impossibility, impracticability, or frustration of purpose and offered to present witnesses and other evidence, but the trial court refused to hear that evidence.
Procedural history
Meng leased commercial premises for a massage business and stopped paying rent after March 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic. The trial court refused to permit her to present evidence supporting impracticability or frustration of purpose, awarded the landlords $6,400 in past-due rent, and granted them possession. The court certified the order for interlocutory review, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari. A separate appeal concerning attorney fees was consolidated but was not considered because Meng did not raise that issue in her brief in chief.
Remand instructions
Remand for proceedings consistent with the opinion, including allowing Meng to present evidence supporting her affirmative defense of impossibility, impracticability, or frustration of purpose. The opinion does not decide whether the defense will ultimately succeed or the period during which it may apply.