Texaco Refining and Marketing, Inc. v. Crown Plaza Group, 01-91-00885-CV

Decision Date03 December 1992
Docket NumberNo. 01-91-00885-CV,01-91-00885-CV
Citation845 S.W.2d 340
PartiesTEXACO REFINING AND MARKETING, INC., Appellant, v. The CROWN PLAZA GROUP, a Texas Joint Venture a/k/a the Crown Plaza Group, a Joint Venture a/k/a Crown Plaza Group, Crown Equities Co., Inc., Individually and as a Joint Venturer and Partner of Crown Plaza Group, a Texas Joint Venture, Crown Towers Co., Inc., Individually and as a Joint Venturer and Partner of Crown Plaza Group, a Texas Joint Venture, Appellees. (1st Dist.)
CourtTexas Court of Appeals

James J. McConn, Jr., Susan C. Stevenson, Hays, McConn, Price & Pickering, Houston, for appellant.

William H. White, Margaret A. Pollard, William H. White & Associates, Houston, for appellee.

Before COHEN, SAM BASS and JONES, JJ.

OPINION

COHEN, Justice.

This is a dispute between a landlord (Crown) and a tenant (Texaco) over proceeds of a partial condemnation that occurred during the lease. The parties stipulated that Texaco's interest, if any, in the condemnation award is $385,000. The sole issue is whether Texaco had an interest in the award. Crown asserts that, as a matter of law, Texaco has no interest in the award. The trial judge agreed and granted Crown declaratory judgment relief, ruling that Texaco take nothing. We reverse and render judgment that Texaco recover $385,000.

In 1972, H.A. Morris leased to Texaco, Inc. 22,500 feet of land at Interstate 10 and West Belt Drive at $975.00 per month for 15 years, with options to renew for two additional five-year terms. Morris later sold the property to Crown. Texaco, our appellant, is the successor in interest to Texaco, Inc.

On January 30, 1987, the condemnation award was filed in the county court. On February 2, 1987, Texaco exercised its option to extend for five years after the initial lease term expired on June 12, 1987, and reserved the right to exercise any further options. After June 12, 1987, Texaco tendered monthly rent to Crown, but Crown refused it, asserting the lease terminated on February 11, 1987, when Harris County became entitled to possession of the land.

Crown's contention was based on the stipulated fact that the remaining property was too small for a gas station. Texaco contended that was irrelevant because the property's suitability for a gas station did not effect either Texaco's right to exercise its option to extend or its right to recover for loss of its lease.

Crown argued at trial that the only issue was whether the lease had automatically terminated according to its terms when its purpose was destroyed by the condemnation, thereby terminating Texaco's right to compensation. At trial, the parties agreed that all material facts were undisputed. The judge ruled for Crown and filed no findings of fact or conclusions of law.

In three points of error, Texaco contends:

1) The trial judge erred in ruling for Crown because, under the lease terms, the partial taking did not automatically terminate the lease or extinguish Texaco's right to part of the condemnation award.

2) The trial judge erred in ruling for Crown because Texaco is entitled to part of the condemnation award for the loss of its leasehold interest.

3) The trial judge erred in ruling for Crown because Texaco, as the lessee under an unexpired lease, should be compensated upon a partial taking for loss of its right to renew the lease.

We sustain all three points of error.

A lessee is entitled, as a matter of law, to share in a condemnation award when part of its leasehold interest is lost by condemnation. Elliot v. Joseph, 163 Tex. 71, 351 S.W.2d 879, 883-84 (1961). Unless a lease provides that it terminates upon...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Weingarten Realty Investors v. Albertson's, Inc., Civ.A. H-98-0912.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas
    • September 24, 1999
    ...Petty Motor Co., 327 U.S. at 374, 66 S.Ct. 596; Elliott, 351 S.W.2d at 884; Marburger, 957 S.W.2d at 90 n. 13; Texaco Ref. & Mktg., Inc. v. Crown Plaza Group, 845 S.W.2d 340, 342 (Tex.App. — Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, no writ); O'Neil Corp. v. Perry Gas Transmission, Inc., 648 S.W.2d 335, 34......
  • Marburger v. Seminole Pipeline Co.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • October 9, 1997
    ...v. Arlington Sports Facilities Dev. Auth., Inc., 873 S.W.2d 120, 123 (Tex.App.--Fort Worth 1994, no writ); Texaco Ref. and Mktg., Inc. v. Crown Plaza Group, Inc., 845 S.W.2d 340, 342 (Tex.App.--Houston [1st. Dist.] 1992, no writ).14 In addition, a conveyance of an estate of inheritance, a f......
  • Trinity Professional Plaza Associates v. Metrocrest Hosp. Authority
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • February 25, 1999
    ...Corporation, 823 S.W.2d 591 (Tex.1992); English v. Fischer, 660 S.W.2d 521 (Tex.1983). The court in Texaco Refining and Marketing, Inc. v. Crown Plaza Group, 845 S.W.2d 340, 342 (Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, no writ), held that there was no duty to act in good faith in an ordinary co......
  • City of Beaumont & Mayor Becky Ames v. Starvin Marvin's Bar & Grill, LLC
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • December 22, 2011
    ...interest in condemnation award when lessee waived its right to condemnation award in lease agreement); see also Texaco Ref. & Mktg., Inc. v. Crown Plaza Grp., 845 S.W.2d 340, 342 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, no writ) (lessee had right to share in condemnation award where lessee had ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Drafting Condemnation Clauses for Leases in Colorado-issues and Strategies
    • United States
    • Colorado Bar Association Colorado Lawyer No. 43-1, January 2014
    • Invalid date
    ...lost all right to share in the condemnation proceeds). [26] See, e.g., Texaco Refining and Marketing, Inc. v. Crown Plaza Group, 845 S.W.2d 340, 342 (Tex.App. 1992). [27] See, e.g., Musser v. Bank of America, 964 P.2d 51, 53-54 (Nev. 1998). [28] See Gifford, 815 P.2d at 1011. [29] CRS § 38-......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT