Carroll Weir Funeral Home, Inc. v. Miller, In re Appropriation of Easement for Highway Purposes

• Decision Date: 02 June 1965
• Docket Number: No. 38814,38814
• Parties: , 31 O.O.2d 402 CARROLL WEIR FUNERAL HOME, Appellant, v. MILLER et al., Appellees. In re APPROPRIATION OF EASEMENT FOR HIGHWAY PURPOSES.
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Page 189

2 Ohio St.2d 189

207 N.E.2d 747, 31 O.O.2d 402

CARROLL WEIR FUNERAL HOME, Appellant, v. MILLER et al., Appellees.

In re APPROPRIATION OF EASEMENT FOR HIGHWAY PURPOSES.

No. 38814.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

June 2, 1965.

Syllabus by the Court

1. Where the parties to a lease provide that the lessor at his option may terminate the lease if the leased premises are taken by eminent domain, and the property is appropriated, and the lessor properly exercises his option, the lessee no longer has a property right in the premises and has no right to share in the fund deposited by the Director of Highways as compensation for the appropriation of the leased premises.

2. In its usual and ordinary meaning, the phrase, 'condemned by public authority,' when used in a lease with reference to the buildings and land which comprise a leasehold includes an appropriation of such property by eminent domain.

On August 2, 1954, Roland Witmer Miller, Helen Miller Rockwood, Albert Fullerton Miller, Mary Barbara Boothby

and Edna Miller Blakely, the owners of real property known as 637 East Broad Street, Columbus, Ohio, and herein referred to as appellees, entered into a 25-year lease with Carroll Weir Funeral Home, Inc., herein referred to as appellant.

The applicable parts of the lease provide:

'25. That said lessee shall at all times during the term of this lease keep the buildings and improvements which now are or may hereafter be placed upon said premises insured in and by some good and solvent insurance company or companies acceptable to said lessors in a sum of not less than ninety thousand dollars ($90,000) against fire, windstorm and tornado, the policy or policies for such respective insurance to be issued in the names of said lessors, and loss, if any, to be made payable to said lessors and said lessee as their respective interests may appear. In the event any building or improvements which are now or may hereafter be constructed upon said premises should be damaged or destroyed by fire or other casualty, the full amount realized from insurance on said buildings or improvements in the amount hereinbefore set forth shall be deposited to the joint credit of said lessors and said lessee in any responsible bank or trust company in the city of Columbus, Ohio and shall be used as a trust fund by said lessee for the purpose of repairing or restoring said premises to their former condition in case of partial loss or for rebuilding upon said premises in case of complete destruction of the buildings or improvements thereon and for no other purpose; and in either such events, the money so realized from said insurance shall be used by said lessee as he may need the same for repairing, restoring or rebuilding said premises, upon said lessee furnishing vouchers to said lessors showing expenditures made therefor.

'* * *

'3. In the event the entire building in which said premises are located should at any time during the existence of this lease be condemned by public authority, then said lessors may at their option terminate this lease.'

On June 7, 1961, the Director of Highways commenced proceedings in the Common Pleas Court of Franklin County to appropriate the leased premises and joined appellees and appellant in the action.

On June 15, 1961, appellees served on appellant a written termination of the lease.

On November 9, 1961, the Common Pleas Court, pursuant to an agreement between the parties, ordered the Director of Highways to deposit with the court the sum of $182,000 as full compensation for the real property appropriated. Appellant, by appropriate application, asked the court to determine the value of its leasehold interests. Appellees filed a petition claiming that under the provisions of the lease appellant has no interest in the money deposited by the state.

On motion for summary judgment, the Common Pleas Court entered judgment and final order directing that the entire fund be distributed to appellees.

The Court of Appeals affirmed that judgment. The cause is before this court upon the allowance of a motion to certify the record.

White & Rankin, Lewis A. Rankin and Gordon E. Williams, Columbus, for appellant.

Porter, Stanley, Treffinger & Platt, Lawrence D. Stanley and Joseph S. Platt, Columbus, for appellees.

MATTHIAS, Judge.

The question presented by this appeal is whether appellant is entitled to any part of the funds paid over by the state for the appropriation of property which it had occupied as lessee.

A lessee has a property right in the leasehold and, in the absence of an agreement to the contrary, is entitled to compensation if it is appropriated by eminent domain. See Foote v. City of Cincinnati, 11 Ohio 408. However, there is nothing to prevent the parties from changing their respective rights by agreement. A lessor and lessee may, by including a property worded provision in their lease, provide that upon appropriation of the property under eminent domain the lessor may at his option terminate the lease. Under such an agreement, if the property is appropriated, the lessor may terminate the lease. The lessee would then have no property right in the premises. Thus, he would have no right to compensation. 1 Casner, American Law of Property, 291, Section 3.55; see, e. g., Goodyear Shoe Machinery Co. v. Boston Terminal Co., 176 Mass. 115, 57 N.E. 214; Territory of Hawaii v. Arneson, 44 Haw. 343, 354 P.2d 981; Select Lake City Theatre Operating Co. v. Central National Bank, 7 Cir., 277 F.2d 814.

Appellees purported to exercise their option by serving a written notice of termination on appellant. Our decision, therefore, depends upon whether the lease involved in the instant case gives them the power to terminate the lease. The applicable provision of the lease reads as follows:

'3. In the event the entire building in which said premises are located should at any time during the existence of this lease be condemned by public authority, then said lessors may at their option terminate this lease.'

Appellant claims that this provision does not give the lessors the right to terminate the lease if the property is appropriated for public use. It contends that the term, 'condemn,' should be restricted to mean a teardown or demolition order under the police power. See, e. g., Section 3737.01, Revised Code; Chapter 4109, Columbus City Code.

Appellant argues that, since the attorney for the appellees drew the lease and since the law abhors a forfeiture, the provision should be construed strictly against the appellees. Rules of construction are aids in ascertaining the intent of the parties when the language used is ambiguous. They should never be invoked if the language is clear. If the meaning is apparent, the terms of the agreement are to be applied, not interpreted. 17 American Jurisprudence 2d 627, 646, Contracts, Sections 241, 253; 51 C.J.S. Landlord and Tenant 232, p. 860; 11 Ohio Jurisprudence 2d 378, Contracts, Section 133.

In interpreting a provision in a written contract, the words used should be read in context and given their usual and ordinary meaning. Paragraph three of the syallabus of Morgan v. Boyer, 39 Ohio St. 324. The meaning given the term, 'condemn,' by the trial court was a proper one. Webster's Third New International Dictionary gives as a definition of 'condemn': 'To pronounce to be taken for public use under the right of eminent domain.' See, also, Black, Law Dictionary (4 Ed.); New Century Dictionary (1953). The construction urged by appellant is strained and unnatural. When used in connection with real property, 'condemn' ordinarily refers to the appropriation of property in eminent domain proceedings. Section 4, Article XVIII of the...