Julian v. Christopher

Douglas Julian and William Gilleland (defendants) leased a tavern, restaurant, and upstairs apartment from Guy Christopher (plaintiff). The lease required Christopher's approval before the tenants could assign or sublet, and Christopher told them at signing that the clause was just meant to prevent subletting to someone who would damage the apartment. When the tenants later asked to sublet the upstairs apartment, Christopher said he would only consent if they paid an extra $150 per month in rent. The tenants let the sublessee move in anyway, and Christopher sued to repossess the building. The trial judge refused to consider Christopher's own stated purpose for the clause, read the lease as giving the landlord unlimited discretion to refuse consent, and ruled for Christopher; the intermediate appellate court affirmed. The tenants asked Maryland's highest court to abandon the traditional rule that a landlord may withhold consent for any reason when the lease has an appropriate clause.