In addition to the lack of a written lease, the facts of this case illustrate why the concept of a
periodic tenancy does not neatly apply to extending a guarantor’s obligation under a fixed term lease.
Defendant Callahan agreed to act a guarantor for Morel’s rent and compliance obligation under the
original lease terms for a fixed period of time. When the lease transferred to a periodic tenancy,
Callahan took no action to secure or confirm her continuing guaranty. In this respect, neither did
the Macks. There is no evidence that Callahan acted one way or the other, or whether she was even
aware of the renewal.1 Plaintiff’s argument is that Callahan remained as a guarantor because the
lease terms renewed through the periodic tenancy, but as noted above, this legal conclusion derives
from the actions of Morel and the Macks. There is no evidence that Callahan assented to this
renewal or took action that would constructively renew her separate obligation. There was no action
on her part that created reliance in the Macks or that indicated an intent to continue the term.