Mills v. Ruppert
| Decision Date | 09 January 1959 |
| Citation | 333 P.2d 818,167 Cal.App.2d 58 |
| Parties | Helen C. MILLS, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. George J. RUPPERT, Jr., Barbara A. Ruppert, Raymond Berney (sued herein as Raymond Burney) and Hazel Berney (sued herein as Hazel Burney), Defendants and Respondents. Civ. 9485. |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Kasch & Cook, Ukiah, for appellant.
Albert L. Wagner, E. R. Vaughn, Sacramento, for respondents Ruppert.
John E. Nelson, Ukiah, for respondents Burney.
Helen C. Mills, lessee, commenced an action against the above-named defendants, lessors, to recover damages for defendants' alleged breach of an express covenant to keep in repair the exterior walls and roofs of the motel building. The complaint alleged that as a result of defendants' breach rain penetrated the walls causing damage consisting of: (a) the expense of making the necessary repairs to the exterior walls ($312.32) and the interior of same ($243.80); (b) damage to wall to wall carpeting and pads from the said water due to the respondents' failure to make repairs; (c) damages due to diminution of reasonable rental value of the premises from the execution of the lease up to the time the repairs were made at $500.00 per month, and thereafter to date of trial; (d) damages to appellant's leasehold interest. The total amount of damages prayed for was $35,000.
The case was tried by the court sitting without a jury. The court awarded plaintiff the sum of $312.32 for repair of the exterior walls and $500.00 for decrease in the rental value for the months of December, 1955, and January, 1956, but denied any further damages. Plaintiff has appealed from said judgment.
The record shows that on July 21, 1954, Helen C. Mills entered into a written lease with Raymond Berney, Hazel Berney, George J. Ruppert, Jr. and Barbara A. Ruppert for the lease of a building known as the City Center Motel in Ukiah, California. The lease was for a term of 10 years at a total rental of $120,000 or $1,000 a month. The lease provided that 'Lessee shall, at her sole cost, keep and maintain said premises and appurtenances and every part thereof (excepting exterior walls and roofs which Lessor agrees to repair), including glazing, sidewalks adjacent to said premises and the interior of the premises, in good and sanitary order, condition and repair, * * *.' The lease also provided:
During the winter of 1954-55, the south wall of the building developed leaks. The lessors notified the contractor and he attempted to repair the wall. However, the attempt was unsuccessful. In June, 1955, Mrs. Mills notified the lessors that the wall had not been waterproofed, and the contractor applied a sealing liquid to it. In November, 1955, the wall leaked again, and again Mrs. Mills notified the lessors. She asked that the wall be repaired in a satisfactory way. Mr. Berney came to the premises with the contractor to inspect the wall, and the lessors agreed to repair it. On December 10, 1955, the contractor arrived to do the work. He obtained the keys to the rooms without Mrs. Mills' knowledge. When she discovered this, she ran up to him and an argument ensued. There is a conflict in the evidence as to whether or not the contractor struck her. In any event, Mrs. Mills ordered him off of the premises. The following Monday Mrs. Mills arranged to have the wall repaired by another person, but due to the torrential rain of the winter, the work was not completed until the end of January. During this period of heavy rainfall, the water came through the wall damaging floor coverings and staining the interior walls of certain rooms. This water damage made certain rooms too damp to rent for a period.
Appellant Helen C. Mills first contends that the trial court erred in not allowing her $243.80 for repairing the interior of the wall. The only question is whether or not the provision in the lease that the lessee should keep and maintain at her sole expense the premises (excepting exterior walls and roof) prevents her from recovering for the damage to the interior walls caused by the disrepair to the exterior wall. No parol evidence as to the meaning of this phrase was introduced so the interpretation becomes a question of law. We believe this provision should be construed to mean that if damage was caused as a result of something occurring in the interior of the building, Mrs. Mills would suffer the loss; but if the damage was the result of a failure to keep the exterior wall in repair, the loss would fall on the lessors. We are fortified in this belief by the fact that the provision waiving all claims for damage to goods, wares and marchandise from any cause arising at any time specifically exempts damage to certain items. We believe a proper construction would be that by limiting the amount of damage in certain particulars, impliedly, the parties meant that in other particulars there would be no limitation. If so, the lessors would be liable for damages to the interior walls caused by failure to repair the exterior wall. The court found that the amount of damage to the interior walls was $243.80. We believe that appellant should have been awarded this amount.
Appellant also contends that she should have been permitted to recover $883.65 which was the cost of cleaning and replacing floor coverings which had been damaged by water and dampness. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Schlobohm v. Spa Petite, Inc.
...Motor Co., 22 Cal. App.2d 151, 70 P.2d 654 (1937); Barkett v. Brucato, 122 Cal.App.2d 264, 264 P.2d 978 (1953); Mills v. Ruppert, 167 Cal.App.2d 58, 333 P.2d 818 (1959). 8 That the determination of what is in "the public interest" cannot be ascertained by reference to any neat formula, the ......
-
Tunkl v. Regents of University of Cal.
... ... Co. v. Western Union Tel. Co. (1912) 163 Cal. 298, 314-315, 125 P. 242.) 2 The recent case of Mills v. Ruppert (1959) 167 Cal.App.2d 58, 62-63, 333 P.2d 818; however, apparently limits '(N)egligent * * * violation of law' exclusively to statutory ... ...
-
John E. Branagh and Sons v. Witcosky
...to that cause of action if the evidence showed such violation to be a proximate cause of the tenant's loss. (See Mills v. Ruppert, 167 Cal.App.2d 58, 62--63, 333 P.2d 818.)' (223 Cal.App.2d at p. 792, 36 Cal.Rptr. at p. This approach fails to consider the distinction between what may be ter......
-
Caza Drilling (California), Inc. v. Teg
...32 Cal.Rptr. 33, 383 P.2d 441, citing England v. Lyon Fireproof Storage Co. (1928) 94 Cal.App. 562, 271 P. 532.) In Mills v. Ruppert (1959) 167 Cal.App.2d 58, 333 P.2d 818, however, the court pointed out that "the only use of the word negligent in said section is in a restrictive sense and ......
-
Mcle Self-study Article: Real Estate Broker Exculpatory Clauses: Their Use and Misuse
...Cmty. Ass'n, 142 Cal. App. 3d 642, 654-55 (1983).8. Tunkl v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 60 Cal. 2d 92 (1963).9. Mills v. Ruppert, 167 Cal. App. 2d 58, 62-63 (1959); Werner v. Knoll, 89 Cal. App. 2d 474, 476 (1948).10. Tunkl, 60 Cal. 2d at 96.11. Id. at 98-101.12. See, e.g., Henrioulle v.......