Hill Air of Gadsden, Inc. v. City of Gadsden
Decision Date | 08 March 1985 |
Citation | 467 So.2d 230 |
Parties | HILL AIR OF GADSDEN, INC. v. The CITY OF GADSDEN, a municipal corporation. 83-1095. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Rowan S. Bone and Edward Cunningham, Gadsden, for appellant.
Edward S. Allen and M. Stanford Blanton of Balch, Bingham, Baker, Ward Smith, Bowman & Thaggard, Birmingham, and Roger Kirby, Gadsden, for appellee.
Appeal by defendant, Hill Air of Gadsden, Inc. (Hill), from summary judgment in favor of plaintiff, City of Gadsden (Gadsden), in the latter's unlawful detainer action. We reverse and remand.
The action was an outgrowth of a written lease agreement between the parties under which Hill agreed to operate a "fixed base operator facility" on property located at Gadsden's municipal airport. Paragraph 23(d) of the lease provides:
The lease contains a termination clause giving Gadsden the right to terminate the lease "by giving Lessee sixty (60) days advance notice upon or after the happening and during the continuance of":
"(g) The default by Lessee in the performance of any covenant or agreement required to be performed by Lessee herein and the failure of Lessee to remedy such default, or to take prompt action to remedy such default, within a period of sixty (60) days after receipt from City of notice to remedy the same."
On July 29, 1983, Gadsden notified Hill that the lease would be terminated if, within 60 days, Hill was not in compliance with paragraph 23(d). On November 4, 1983, Gadsden notified Hill that the lease was terminated on the grounds, among others, that:
On January 18, 1984, Gadsden brought an action of unlawful detainer, Code of 1975, § 6-6-330, against Hill in the Etowah County District Court, which, following a hearing, entered an order giving Gadsden possession of the premises. Hill filed a notice of appeal to circuit court and filed a supersedeas bond, which was approved.
In due course, Gadsden moved for summary judgment. Hill responded and counterclaimed for damages.
Gadsden's summary judgment motion was based upon the transcript of the proceedings in the district court. The circuit court granted the motion for summary judgment against Hill, prefacing its order with these words:
"Plaintiff having moved the court for a summary judgment, and it appearing to the court that based on prior undisputed testimony there is no genuine issue as to the material fact of an insufficient number of air taxi and air charter aircraft and that there is no instrument rated twin engine aircraft, as required by the lease entered into by the parties, and that the plaintiff is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law...."
This appeal ensued.
On appeal, Hill argues that paragraph 23(d) is ambiguous, and gives this interpretation of it: (1) Hill was to supply four types of service for the public; (2) Hill was to have at least four licensed aircraft for these services; and (3) Hill was to have sufficient pilots to perform these services. It is undisputed that Hill owned four aircraft; however, Hill contends, paragraph 23(d) does not require that each of the four aircraft be individually licensed to provide all four of the specified services.
Gadsden, on the other hand, maintains that paragraph 23(d) is not ambiguous, and argues that the requirement of "four aircraft, licensed by the FAA" refers to "for these services," concluding with this argument:
At the outset, we point out what we have said previously regarding ambiguity in the terms of a contract, where we wrote of an insurance policy:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Shirley v. Lin
...due consideration of the whole [contract] to determine if uncertainty and ambiguity exist in its terms.' " Hill Air of Gadsden, Inc. v. City of Gadsden, 467 So.2d 230, 232 (Ala.1985) (quoting Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Hare, 47 Ala.App. 478, 486, 256 So.2d 904, 911 (1972) (emphasis omitted)). S......
-
Fuller v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co.
...interpretations of a contract in the throes of litigation does not create an ambiguity where none exists. Hill Air of Gadsden, Inc. v. City of Gadsden, 467 So.2d 230, 233 (Ala.1985). The court believes that the final paragraph of the loss settlement provision is certain with respect to the ......
-
Haynes v. Gasoline Marketing, Inc.
...because the parties do not agree on its proper construction or their intent upon executing the contract. See Hill Air of Gadsden, Inc. v. Gadsden, 467 So.2d 230, 233 (Ala.1985). The Defendant relies on the removal portion of the lease in arguing that the lease is unambiguous and prohibits t......
-
Steward v. Champion Intern. Corp., 91-7943
...interpretations of the contract in the throes of litigation does not create ambiguity where none exists. Hill Air of Gadsden, Inc. v. City of Gadsden, 467 So.2d 230, 233 (Ala.1985). Upon careful review, we agree with the district court that the TPA is unambiguous. The agreement states in cl......