Connection lost
Server error
Mullendore Theatres, Inc. v. Growth Realty Investors Co. Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A successor landlord was not liable for a security deposit it never received. The court held the promise to return the deposit was a personal obligation of the original landlord, not a covenant that “runs with the land” and binds subsequent owners.
Legal Significance: Establishes that a landlord’s covenant to return a security deposit is personal and does not run with the land unless the lease restricts the use of any forfeited funds to the direct benefit of the property itself.
Mullendore Theatres, Inc. v. Growth Realty Investors Co. Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
In 1969, a tenant entered a lease requiring a security deposit to secure performance. The lease stated the deposit would be returned at the lease’s expiration if the tenant was not in default, and that all covenants would run with the land. The lease permitted, but did not require, the landlord to apply the deposit to damages sustained from a default. The original tenant’s interest was assigned to Mullendore Theatres, Inc. The property was transferred through several owners, eventually being acquired by Growth Realty Investors Co. Growth Realty never received the security deposit from the prior owner. Growth later sold the property to the City of Tacoma, agreeing to indemnify the City for any liability regarding the deposit. Mullendore released the City from any claim for the deposit but reserved its rights against others. Mullendore then sued Growth Realty for the return of the deposit, arguing the covenant to refund it ran with the land and bound Growth as a successor landlord.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does a landlord’s covenant to refund a tenant’s security deposit run with the land and bind a successor landlord who did not receive the deposit, where the lease does not require that forfeited funds be used for the property’s benefit?
No, the covenant to return the security deposit does not run with Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolor
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Does a landlord’s covenant to refund a tenant’s security deposit run with the land and bind a successor landlord who did not receive the deposit, where the lease does not require that forfeited funds be used for the property’s benefit?
Conclusion
This case clarifies the “touch and concern” doctrine as applied to financial Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam
Legal Rule
A lease covenant runs with the land only if it “touches and Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pari
Legal Analysis
The court's analysis centered on the “touch and concern” requirement for a Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aut
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A landlord’s covenant to refund a security deposit is a personal