High Line Lube, LLC v. Hickory North Properties, LLC
| Decision Date | 16 February 2016 |
| Docket Number | CVH8461 |
| Court | Connecticut Superior Court |
| Parties | High Line Lube, LLC dba Valvoline Instant Oil Change v. Hickory North Properties, LLC |
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
An order to show cause was issued by the Court and served on the defendant-landlord Hickory North Properties, LLC (Hickory North). The Court heard the parties on this matter on June 26, 2015, July 27, 2015, September 21, 2015 and September 28 2015 and each party presented documentary and testimonial evidence subject to cross examination. Plaintiff, High Line Lube, LLC d/b/a Valvoline Instant Oil Change (High Line), and defendant filed trial briefs that were received on October 19, 2015. The Court has weighed all the evidence and assessed the credibility of the witnesses and has made its findings based upon the applicable legal standards and the totality of the evidence presented.
On May 1, 2000, Hickory North leased space located at 4 National Drive, Windsor Locks, Connecticut to Windsor Locks Fast Oil LLC for a term of ten years, with an option to renew the lease for eight additional five-year terms. Windsor Locks Fast Oil, LLC assigned the lease to High Line on March 29, 2007 and defendant-landlord Hickory North consented and executed an Assignment Consent and Estoppel Certificate. In order to renew the lease, written notification was required six months prior to the end of the lease term. The lease contains a condition that landlord will not lease any part of the premises to any other tenant (Pl's Ex. 3, 1F, p. 24.)
The landlord Hickory North leased to a tenant, Heavys Automotive, Inc. (Heavys), space next to tenant High Line's space. The lease is dated to commence on August 1, 2014 but was signed on November 19, 2014. On July 25, 2014, High Line sent a letter to Hickory North notifying them that Heavys was offering the same services offered by High Line and that this was a violation of the restrictive covenant in High Line's lease. On October 27, 2014, High Line filed an application for temporary and permanent injunction against Hickory North seeking to enjoin Hickory North from allowing any other tenant from operating a " fast oil change or related activity, or related and/or ancillary operation including air conditioning services." Additionally, High Line sought to declare void any provision of any existing Lease for any tenant that allows fast oil change or ancillary operations including air conditioning services.
" The principal purpose of a temporary injunction is to preserve the status quo until the rights of the parties can be finally determined after a hearing on the merits." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Clinton v. Middlesex Mutual Assurance Co., 37 Conn.App. 269, 270, 655 A.2d 814 (1995). Generally, the party seeking the injunction must prove the lack of a remedy at law and must show irreparable harm and substantial injury. Berin v. Olson, 183 Conn. 337, 340, 439 A.2d 357 (1981); Jones v. Foote, 165 Conn. 516, 338 A.2d 467 (1973). However, there is a more relaxed rule invoked when a restrictive covenant is involved. See Access Am. v. Mazzotta, Superior Court, judicial district of Middlesex at Middletown, Docket No. CV 05-40033 89 (September 14, 2005, Silbert, J.) [40 Conn. L. Rptr. 12] . " A restrictive covenant may be enforced by injunction without a showing that violation of the covenant will cause harm to the plaintiff, so long as such relief is not inequitable." Hartford Electric Light Co. v. Levitz, 173 Conn. 15, 21-22, 376 A.2d 381 (1977); see also Gino's Pizza of East Hartford, Inc. v. Kaplan, 193 Conn. 135, 139, 475 A.2d 305 (1984). The burden of proof is upon the party seeking the temporary injunction " by the preponderance of evidence." Beacon Falls v. Posick, 17 Conn.App. 17, 24 n.5, 549 A.2d 656 (1988), rev'd on other grounds, 212 Conn. 570, 563 A.2d 285 (1989).
The defendant argues that plaintiff is a holdover tenant with no right to enforce the restrictive covenant referenced above. (Pl's Ex. 3, 1F, p. 24.) The plaintiff argues that there is a valid lease between landlord and tenant which permits the tenant to seek injunctive relief. The plaintiff admits that there is no proof that it sent written notice exercising an intention to renew the original lease that terminated on April 30, 2010 as required by the lease. (Pl's Ex. 3, page 23, 1A.) The plaintiff argues the existence of a new rental term by demonstrating the payment of a 15% monthly rental increase provided for in the renewal term of the lease and acceptance by the landlord of this increased rental amount.
In United Soc. & Mental Health Services, Inc. v. Rodowicz, 96 Conn.App. 34, 39, 899 A.2d 85 (2006) (citing Perrotti v. Chiodo, 21 Conn.App. 288, 290, 573 A.2d 342 (1990)), the Connecticut Appellate Court found that if an option in a lease to renew has been exercised it requires the trier of fact to look to the intent of the parties as expressed in their words and deeds. See also Zuckerman Group v. Raveis, 4 Conn.App. 568, 571-72, 495 A.2d 300 (1985). A lessor may waive a notice requirement for exercising an option to renew a lease by conduct. Adam v. Consolini, 135 Conn. 321, 324, 64 A.2d 44 (1949). " Our case law is clear that a landlord may be deemed to have waived the notice requirements for a renewal or extension option in circumstances where the tenant is seeking to hold the landlord to an extension of the term." David A. Altschuler Trust v. Blanchette, 33 Conn.App. 570, 574, 636 A.2d 1381 (1994).
Hickory North's conduct in the present case clearly demonstrates that it waived the notice requirement in the lease. Hickory North continued to send Common Area Maintenance charges (CAM charges) referencing " lease year" for several years following the alleged expiration of the parties' lease. High Line continued to pay Hickory North the rental amount specified in the original lease for the first option term extension, and Hickory continued to accept the payments as rent. Also, Hickory North did not notify High Line's Franchisor, Valvoline Instant Oil Change Franchising Inc. (Valvoline), of Valvoline's right, under the Assignment Consent and Estoppel Certificate, to exercise the option to renew the lease in the event that High Line elected to not exercise the option. Additionally, Hickory North's lease agreement with Heavys presumed the...
To continue reading
Request your trial