Brown v. Hoffman, 79SC218
Decision Date | 18 May 1981 |
Docket Number | No. 79SC218,79SC218 |
Citation | 628 P.2d 617 |
Parties | Samuel BROWN, Ronald Brown, Harold Kapelovitz, Ken Jeung, Michael Cooper, Robert Rifkin, Gerald Kernie and Gary Mosko, Individually and d/b/a Evans Joint Venture, Petitioners, v. Kent HOFFMAN and Gary Levinson, Respondents. |
Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Hobbs & Waldbaum, P. C., Leonard N. Waldbaum, William E. Brayshaw, Denver, for petitioners.
Bernard D. Morley, Denver, for respondents.
Petitioners, doing business as Evans Joint Venture (lessors), challenge the holding of the court of appeals denying them possession of their premises which had been leased to respondents, Kent Hoffman and Gary Levinson (lessees). Hoffman v. Brown, 42 Colo.App. 444, 599 P.2d 959 (1978). We reverse in part and affirm in part.
On June 4, 1974, lessees and lessors' predecessor in interest entered into a lease of space in a building located on East Evans Avenue in Denver, Colorado. The premises were to be used by lessees for their karate school. The term of the lease was three years beginning July 31, 1974. In pertinent part, the lease provided:
By letter dated June 4, 1974, the parties agreed that the lessees would have the right to renew the lease for an additional period of not more than five years at a rental "to be determined by the change in the Consumer Price Index."
On February 28, 1975, the parties executed an addendum to the lease. The addendum recited: "That in consideration of the keeping and performance of the covenants and agreements set forth in the indenture (lease) hereinabove referred to and which are incorporated herein by reference and hereinafter set forth, and the payment of the rent hereinafter stated by the lessees, * * *" the lessor leased to the lessees additional space. The addendum further provided for an option to renew as follows:
On May 6, 1977, the lessors gave notice by letter that the lessees were considered to be in breach of the lease for several reasons among which was the lessees' failure to comply with the requirement that they pay their prorated share of the increase in the real property taxes. The lessees were advised that the taxes had increased for the years 1975 and 1976 and that the lessees owed eleven percent of the increase, or a total of $777.58, and that if that amount was not paid the owners (lessors) would terminate the lease. Lessees claimed that they had only leased ten percent of the space in the building and, thus, were only liable for that percentage of the increased taxes. However, they failed to tender the amount of taxes they admittedly owed, and refused to pay any sum whatsoever.
On June 3, 1977, more than thirty days before the end of the primary term, lessees notified lessors that they were exercising their right to renew the lease for an additional five-year period. Lessees paid June and July base rent, without any amount for increased taxes. The July rental payment was not timely made.
On July 1, 1977, the lessors served the lessees with a notice terminating the lease as of July 31, 1977, the end of the initial term of the lease, requiring the lessees to vacate and surrender the premises on or before that date. 1 The lessees refused to do so and on July 28, 1977, filed this action seeking a declaratory judgment as to the status of the lease. The lessors counterclaimed, asking for a declaration that the lessees were in violation of the terms of their lease and not entitled to possession, for a writ of restitution, for judgment for unpaid taxes, for compensatory and exemplary damages, and for attorneys' fees and costs. 2
After trial to the court, the district court entered extensive findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a judgment in favor of the lessors. 3 In summary, the court found that, although the lessees were notified by letter dated May 6, 1977, that the taxes on the leased premises had increased $3,551.09 during the year 1975 and $3,517.18 during the year 1976; that they had not paid their prorata share as required by the lease; that the lessees' rental space had increased ten percent (not eleven percent) and the lessees were therefore obligated to pay as additional rent ten percent of the increase in taxes; and that lessees' failure to pay the additional rent was willful and intentional, with knowledge that they were in arrears for the additional rent accrued; and that the breach of the covenant to pay rent was substantial.
The district court concluded as a matter of law that the lessees had no right to possession of the premises. The court held that, although the lessees may have believed in good faith that they owed only ten percent of the increase in taxes as additional rent, they were not excused from tendering the ten percent rent increase and that the filing of the declaratory judgment action did not excuse the nonperformance by the lessees. Further, the court concluded that the consideration for the lease, of which the option was a part, was the payment of the rent and the keeping of the covenants. Since the breach by the lessees was intentional and substantial, the court concluded it was willful and, therefore, the lessees had no right to renew the lease.
The court entered a judgment for possession of the premises and for the additional rent due attributable to the tax increase. The court denied the lessors' claim for damages, based upon various other alleged breaches of the lease, for want of sufficient proof. The court also denied the lessors' claim for attorneys' fees. The court delayed implementation of its order pending appeal and ordered lessees to pay rent at the rate set in the original lease plus any monthly adjustment for increased taxes.
The court of appeals, in a divided opinion, reversed. Hoffman v. Brown, supra. It held that the only condition to the exercise of the option to renew was that lessees give lessors thirty days notice of intent to renew. Since lessees had done this, the court of appeals found the renewal was valid and the lessees were entitled to possession. However, it remanded the case to the district court for a more precise finding on the rental rate to be paid by lessees during the renewal period.
The principal issue is whether there was a valid exercise by the lessees of the option to renew the lease for an additional term of five years, as the court of appeals decided.
We do not agree with the court of appeals' construction of the terms of the lease, which held that the only condition to the exercise of the option to renew was the giving of a thirty-day written notice prior to the end of the initial term of the lease. As thus construed, the granting of the option to renew was...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Carder, Inc. v. Cash
...reasonably interpreted according to the apparent intention of the parties. Schneiker v. Gordon, 732 P.2d 603 (Colo.1987); Brown v. Hoffman, 628 P.2d 617 (Colo.1981). A general covenant to extend or renew implies an additional term equal to the first and upon the same terms and conditions. Y......
-
Hieb v. Jelinek
...are uncertain or delinquent. See Hindquarter Corp. v. Property Development Corp., 95 Wash.2d 809, 631 P.2d 923 (1981); Brown v. Hoffman, 628 P.2d 617 (Colo.1981); Gadsden Bowling Center, Inc. v. Frank, 249 Ala. 435, 31 So.2d 648 (1947). Therefore, it is commonly held that the right to exerc......
-
Thrifty Dutchman, Inc. v. Florida Supermarkets, Inc.
...precludes the exercise of the option. E.g., Hindquarter Corp. v. Property Dev. Corp., 95 Wash.2d 809, 631 P.2d 923 (1981); Brown v. Hoffman, 628 P.2d 617 (Colo.1981); Nork v. Pac. Coast Medical Enters., 73 Cal.App.3d 410, 140 Cal.Rptr. 734 (1977); Klepper v. Hoover, 21 Cal.App.3d 460, 98 Ca......
-
Jameson v. Foster
...in granting specific performance because plaintiffs failed to comply with the terms of the lease agreement. Relying upon Brown v. Hoffman, Colo., 628 P.2d 617 (1981), defendants assert that by engaging in wasteful conduct and by twice making late rental payments, plaintiffs breached the agr......
-
Dependent Covenants in Commercial Leases: Hindquarter Corp. v. Property Development Corp
...Inc., 73 Cal. App. 3d 410, 140 Cal. Rptr. 734 (1977); Klepper v. Hoover, 21 Cal. App. 3d 460, 98 Cal. Rptr. 482 (1971); Brown v. Hoffman, 628 P.2d 617 (Colo. 1981); Piper v. Levy, 114 La. 544, 38 So. 448 (1905); Skillman v. Lynch, 74 S.D. 212, 50 N.W.2d 641 (1951); Hillhaven, Inc. v. Care O......
-
Chapter 18 - § 18.2 • LEASES GENERALLY
...[73] Randolph v. Helps, 10 P. 245 (Colo. 1885); Oriental Refining Co. v. Hallenbeck, 240 P.2d 913 (Colo. 1952).[74] Brown v. Hoffman, 628 P.2d 617 (Colo. 1981); Bain v. Pioneer Plaza Shopping Ctr. LLC, 894 P.2d 47 (Colo. App. 1995); Carder, Inc. v. Cash, 97 P.3d 174 (Colo. App. 2003).[75] B......
-
Chapter 1 - § 1.2 • COMMON LAW AND STATUTORY BACKGROUND
...Friedman on Leases § 1:1 (Practicing Law Institute 6th ed. 2017).[13] Reeves & Notarianni, supra n. 12, § 18.2.4 (citing Brown v. Hoffman, 628 P.2d 617 (Colo. 1981); Bain v. Pioneer Plaza Shopping Ctr. LLC, 894 P.2d 47 (Colo. App. 1995); Carder, Inc. v. Cash, 97 P.3d 174 (Colo. App. 2003)).......
-
Chapter 24 - § 24.23 • COVENANTS
...and helpful to the landlord, as it may sway a judge in interpreting the tenant's lease obligations. --------Notes:[51] Brown v. Hoffman, 628 P.2d 617 (Colo. 1981).[52] Shaffer v. George, 64 Colo. 47, 171 P. 881 (1917).[53] Lookout Mountain Paradise Hills Homeowners' Ass'n v. Viewpoint Assoc......