Pacificorp Capital, Inc. v. National School Board Ass'n

Alexandria County Circuit Court

Pacificorp Capital, Inc. v. National School Board Ass'n

21 Va. Cir. 175, 1990 Va. Cir. LEXIS 308

CourtAlexandria County Circuit Court

DecidedAugust 10, 1990

DocketCase No. (Law) CL900460

StatusPublished

This text of 21 Va. Cir. 175 (Pacificorp Capital, Inc. v. National School Board Ass'n) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Alexandria County Circuit Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Pacificorp Capital, Inc. v. National School Board Ass'n, 21 Va. Cir. 175, 1990 Va. Cir. LEXIS 308 (Va. Super. Ct. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

By JUDGE ALFRED D. SWERSKY

This matter is before the Court on defendant’s Demurrer. I have read the memoranda of counsel and considered the arguments made. The Demurrer must be sustained.

Plaintiff alleges a lease of personalty for various terms but expiring on November 30, 1988, and January 31, 1989; that defendant failed to return the property; continued to use the equipment; failed to pay rent after invoices and created a "holdover tenancy" for one year "by operation of law." The basis of plaintiff’s claim is ex contractu.

Defendant demurs alleging that there is no "holdover tenancy" in a lease for personalty and that the agreement of the parties required a demand from plaintiff for the return of the property at a specified place and no such demand is alleged.

It is well-settled in the law of bailment, which governs this transaction, that a demand for the return of the bailed property is a prerequisite to the maintenance of a suit. See, Michie’s Jurisprudence, Bailments, sect. 15, p. 133. Nothing in plaintiff’s allegations (the lease agreements were not made a part of the pleadings) show a change in this requirement in the agreement between the parties. Plaintiff simply alleges that defendant "made no request for a place to return the equipment." Further, [176]*176plaintiff has failed to allege a demand and a refusal to surrender the property.

Nothing in the allegations factually supports plaintiff’s claim that a "hold-over tenancy" was created for a term of one year. Plaintiff does not allege an express contract renewing the lease for a specified term. It merely asserts that a contract arises by operation of law renewing the agreements for a period of one year. Such conclusions are insufficient to allege a cause of action. Thus, the Demurrer will be sustained; however, plaintiff will be given leave to amend if it so desires.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

By JUDGE ALFRED D. SWERSKY

This matter is before the Court on defendant’s Demurrer. I have read the memoranda of counsel and considered the arguments made. The Demurrer must be sustained.

Plaintiff alleges a lease of personalty for various terms but expiring on November 30, 1988, and January 31, 1989; that defendant failed to return the property; continued to use the equipment; failed to pay rent after invoices and created a "holdover tenancy" for one year "by operation of law." The basis of plaintiff’s claim is ex contractu.

Defendant demurs alleging that there is no "holdover tenancy" in a lease for personalty and that the agreement of the parties required a demand from plaintiff for the return of the property at a specified place and no such demand is alleged.

It is well-settled in the law of bailment, which governs this transaction, that a demand for the return of the bailed property is a prerequisite to the maintenance of a suit. See, Michie’s Jurisprudence, Bailments, sect. 15, p. 133. Nothing in plaintiff’s allegations (the lease agreements were not made a part of the pleadings) show a change in this requirement in the agreement between the parties. Plaintiff simply alleges that defendant "made no request for a place to return the equipment." Further, [176]*176plaintiff has failed to allege a demand and a refusal to surrender the property.

Nothing in the allegations factually supports plaintiff’s claim that a "hold-over tenancy" was created for a term of one year. Plaintiff does not allege an express contract renewing the lease for a specified term. It merely asserts that a contract arises by operation of law renewing the agreements for a period of one year. Such conclusions are insufficient to allege a cause of action. Thus, the Demurrer will be sustained; however, plaintiff will be given leave to amend if it so desires.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

21 Va. Cir. 175, 1990 Va. Cir. LEXIS 308, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pacificorp-capital-inc-v-national-school-board-assn-vaccalexandria-1990.