Campbell v. Hensley
| Decision Date | 13 February 1970 |
| Citation | 450 S.W.2d 501 |
| Parties | Cordell CAMPBELL et al., Appellants, v. Paul A. HENSLEY et al., Appellees. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky |
Alva A. Hollon, Hollon & Hollon, Hazard, for appellants.
Calvin N. Manis, Hazard, for appellees.
This dispute involves the leasing of a filling station. The appellants, as lessors, brought this action against the appellees, as lessees, for unpaid rent. The lessees defended on the ground that the lessors had previously leased the same property to another party for the same term as was provided in the lease on which the current action is based; the lessees also counterclaimed for rent payments previously made by them to the lessors under this later lease.
The trial court dismissed the lessors' action and also dismissed the lessee's counterclaim. The lessors appeal from that part of the judgment declaring their lease void and refusing recovery for unpaid rent. The lessees cross-appeal from that part of the judgment denying their demand for refund of rent payments that they had made pursuant to the provisions of the lease upon which this action is based. We reverse that portion of the judgment denying recovery by the lessors and affirm that part of the judgment refusing the relief sought by the lessees.
The lessors inherited the property which is the subject of the lease in controversy from their father, who had owned it for several years prior to his death. The lessees are in the oil and gasoline distribution business and are known as local 'consignees' of Texaco Oil Company. This Texaco local distributorship was owned and operated by Mr. Ernest Combs for a considerable period of years prior to his death. The lessees in this action inherited the gasoline distributorship from Mr. Ernest Combs.
For several years prior to the inheritance by the lessors and lessees of the interests concerned herein, Ernest Combs, the Texaco Oil Company, and the lessors' father, had an oral arrangement whereby Texaco paid the owner of the filling station one cent per gallon for gasoline pumped thereon and Combs, Texaco's local distributor, controlled the possession of the premises, selected and controlled the operator of the filling station thereon, and paid to the owner of the filling station property the sum of $155 per month as rent.
Upon Ernest Combs' death, his son-in-law, Paul Hensley, became manager of the local Texaco distributorship. The owner of the filling station property had also died and the present lessors, his children, had inherited his property. Hensley, Texaco, and the present lessors decided that the prior oral arrangement should be reduced to writing. With Hensley's full knowledge, encouragement and consent, the present lessors entered into a printed form lease with Texaco on May 29, 1964; by the terms of this document, Texaco agreed to pay, as it had done for the past several years, the rental of one cent per gallon on the gasoline pumped and sold at the filling station. The document described Texaco as the lessee and granted to Texaco an option to purchase the property on certain terms and conditions not pertinent here. The term of this lease was for five years with an option to renew for an additional five years on certain terms and conditions.
Thereafter, on July 16, 1964, a second lease was executed between the present lessors and the present lessees. It is stipulated that all parties to the second lease knew of the existence of the prior Texaco lease. By the terms of this second lease, the present lessees agreed to pay as rent for their occupation and control of the filling station the sum of $155 per month, the same amount that they and their predecessor had paid for several years in the past. This later lease was made subject to Texaco's option to purchase and also undertook to give the present lessees a right of first refusal if the lessors desired to sell the property to any party other than Texaco.
The lessees continued to pay the monthly rental provided in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pierson v. Coffey
...disagree. The general rule is that a tenant in possession of property may not dispute the title of his or her landlord. Campbell v. Hensley, Ky., 450 S.W.2d 501 (1970). Moreover, a tenant who remains in possession as a holdover tenant after the repudiation or termination of a lease is estop......
-
Merrill v. DeMott, 28369
...an adverse claim to property has no effect upon the lease." Id. § 917, at 735-736 (footnote omitted); see, e.g., Campbell v. Hensley, 450 S.W.2d 501 (Ky.1970); Rockport Shrimp Cooperative v. Jackson, 776 S.W.2d 758, 760 (Tex.Ct.App.1989) ("As a general rule, as long as the tenant is not dis......
-
Sullivan v. McCown, 2015-CA-000981-MR
...Parks Comm'n, 128 S.W.2d 963, 965 (Ky. 1939). See also Pierson v. Coffey, 706 S.W.2d 409, 414 (Ky. App. 1985), citing Campbell v. Hensley, 450 S.W.2d 501 (Ky. 1970). Based on this rule, the Flanary heirs argue that the Sullivans cannot deny the Trust's title to the property subject to the c......