Schneiker v. Gordon

732 P.2d 603 (1987)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

D entered into a lease with the owner of certain property for use of the leased premises as a car wash. The property included a structure and attached equipment. Rent under the primary lease was payable at the rate of $600 per month, and the term of the primary lease was to extend through May of 1983. On April 1, 1980, D entered into a sublease with Ps. The sublease provided for a monthly rent of $1,900 and was for a term ending at the same time as that of the primary lease. The sublease specified that the premises were to be operated as a car wash. In addition to containing a provision that the sublessees would keep the premises and equipment in good repair, the sublease also contained a 'Repossession' clause which provided: The parties agree that in case said premises are left vacant and any part of the rent herein reserved be unpaid, then the Lessor may, without in any way being obliged to do so, and without terminating this lease, retake possession of said premises, and rent the same for such rent and upon such conditions as the Lessor may think best, making such changes and repairs as may be required, giving credit for the amount of rent so received less all expenses of such changes and repairs, and said Lessee shall be liable for the balance of the rent herein reserved until the expiration of this lease. After July of 1981, P ceased making rental payments, and they abandoned the premises in August of 1981. In November the lessee-sublessor reentered the premises. The equipment was in a state of disrepair and the property could not be operated as a car wash. D surrendered the property in February 1982 to his lessor under the primary lease. P sued D for misrepresentation and D sued for breach of the sublease and rent until May of 1983. The court found for P in that once D surrendered the primary lease P no longer owed anything to D beyond that point in time. The appeals court affirmed that the surrender of the primary lease operated as a surrender and termination of the sublease as a matter of law and that the sublessees' obligation to pay future rent ended when the sublease was terminated since there was no express agreement between the parties that the obligation to pay rent would survive termination of the sublease. D appealed.