Kang v. Harrington

Facts

P is the owner of a house and P's daughter, Dolly Won, lives adjacent to the 2927 Hibiscus Place property that P owns. On October 28, 1973, Dolly Won, acting as the agent of P, advertised the 2927 Hibiscus Place property as available for rental. On October 29, 1973, Dolly Won met D who indicated that he was interested in renting the property. Dolly Won stated that the rent was $450 per month and that no dogs were permitted. D mentioned that he would be willing to make certain improvements to the property if his dogs would be allowed. At their next meeting, D showed Dolly Won a sketch of the proposed improvements. D would construct a wall along the ewa (west) side of the property, another wall along the common boundary between the 3052 Hibiscus Drive property and the 2927 Hibiscus Place property, and do some terracing and landscaping of the grounds. Dolly Won agreed to rent the 2927 Hibiscus Place property to D for one year, to permit D's dogs, and to reduce the rent to $400 per month because of the proposed improvements. D was also to receive an option for an additional one-year term and first consideration in the event that the property was available after the expiration of the second year. On November 2, 1973, D gave Dolly Won the $400 security deposit and a letter of intent which was signed by both D and Dolly Won. The letter stated that the $400 was for the first month's rent of the 'house and property located at 3052 Hibiscus from November 6, 1973, for a period of one year with an additional option for a second year at four hundred dollars per month ($400.00) inclusive.' Prior to signing the letter the parties revised it to state that the 400 was a security deposit rather than the first month's rent. No mention was made of the fact that the 3052 Hibiscus Drive property was referred to in the letter instead of the 2927 Hibiscus Place property. Dolly Won then produced the appropriate rental forms but acceded to D's request that he be allowed to take them with him to type up at his office. D returned on November 3, 1973, and gave Dolly Won two copies of the typed-up rental forms to sign. D told Dolly Won that he was in a hurry. She initialed and signed all the documents in 'a couple minutes' without reading them carefully. The rental agreement contained an additional provision giving D a perpetual option to rent the 2927 Hibiscus Place property instead of the agreed upon one-year option. D moved in and began to make various improvements in addition to the previously agreed upon walls and landscaping. This included the enclosure of a patio with screens and sliding glass doors, the construction of a concrete patio, electrical and plumbing work, interior repainting, and the installation of a picture window, chandelier, sink, and appliances. On February 11, 1974, D sent a letter to Dolly Won mentioning his long-term intentions with regard to the 2927 Hibiscus Place property and the fact that he had spent and would continue to spend substantial amounts of money to improve the property. On October 3, 1974, Dolly Won received another letter from D stating that he had elected to renew his 'option for the following year and for many, many years.' On November 25, 1974, D filed suit seeking to reform the rental agreement to limit the option provision to one year and for compensatory damages of $20,000 and punitive damages of $20,000. D sought to reform the rental agreement to provide for a valid fifty-five-year lease or declare that the lease was terminated and award D his out-of-pocket costs for the improvements. D sought $30,000 punitive damages for P's alleged fraud in construing the rental agreement to relate only to a one-year option and $30,000 punitive damages for P's alleged assault and battery against D. The trial court held that D had committed fraud in attempting to obtain a perpetual or long-term lease of the 2927 Hibiscus Place property. The rental agreement was reformed to provide for a one-year term with an option for an additional one-year term. P was also given $1,800 compensatory damages and $20,000 punitive damages. The court also held that P did not commit an assault and battery against D. D appealed. 

Issues

Rule of Law

Holding and Decision

Legal Analysis

© 2007-2024 ABN Study Partner.