Winegar v. Smith Inv. Co., 15504
| Decision Date | 26 January 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 15504,15504 |
| Citation | 590 P.2d 348 |
| Parties | LeMar S. WINEGAR and LeGrand Winegar, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. SMITH INVESTMENT COMPANY, a Utah Corporation, Defendant and Respondent. |
| Court | Utah Supreme Court |
Earl S. Spafford of Spafford & Nixon, Salt Lake City, for plaintiffs and appellants.
Harry D. Pugsley of Watkiss & Campbell, Salt Lake City, for defendant and respondent.
Plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of no cause of action on their Complaint to seek reformation of a lease and to seek damages for wrongful failure of defendant to consent to assignment of the lease.
On November 20, 1966, Defendant Smith Investment Company leased to Virgil and Thelma Fox a parcel of its property for the purpose of constructing a carwash. The lease term, commencing on February 15, 1967, was for a period of five years and provided for a renewal term of five years. The Foxes constructed and operated the carwash for almost two years and then assigned the lease to William and Elithe Doxey. The Doxeys also acquired the carwash business, improvements and facilities from the Foxes.
On January 9, 1969, the date of the assignment from the Foxes to the Doxeys, at the Doxeys' request, defendant executed an amendment to the lease modifying paragraphs 2 and 3 of the lease. A Mr. Reed M. Smith, from defendant company, drafted the amendment enlarging the lease term to eight years with notice of the intention to renew to be given three months prior to the expiration of the eight year period. When Misters Doxey and Smith met to execute the amendment, the parties made several interlineations on the amended lease, changing the term to ten years, but they did not change the provision governing the notice to renew. The relevant amended provision, which is at the center of the parties' dispute, is quoted below. The word enclosed in brackets is the portion of the agreement which was cancelled out by the parties to insert the word "ten."
2. TERM. The term of this lease shall be for a period of ten (eight) years commencing on the 15th day of February, 1967, as hereinafter provided, with a right of renewal for an additional five years upon condition that notice of intention to renew is given by the Lessees to the Lessor at least three months prior to the expiration of Said eight-year period, and upon the further condition that the rent for the renewal period shall be $200 per month. (Emphasis added.)
It is pertinent to note that there is no eight year period in the lease to which the renewal provision can refer.
Doxeys assigned their interest in the lease and sold the carwash equipment and business to the Winegars, plaintiffs herein, on August 23, 1972. The assignment provided that "WINEGAR agreed to be bound by the terms, conditions, provisions and rentals as contained in the above-stated documents," which referred to the lease. Defendant consented to the assignment.
In March of 1976, plaintiffs began negotiating with a Mr. Jensen for the assignment of their lease and sale of the carwash business. In response to a letter notifying Mr. Smith of plaintiffs' intention to sell the business, Mr. Smith replied that his company would not withhold consent to assignment of the lease provided that plaintiffs first complete some repair and maintenance work and also provide him with the proposed buyer's financial statement. Winegars immediately completed the repairs, although at trial they admitted that some of the repairs were routine maintenance and others were "extras." They also forwarded to defendant Mr. Jensen's financial statement.
In April, Mr. Jensen entered into a Uniform Real Estate Contract with plaintiffs to purchase the carwash, and in July of 1976 he in turn listed the carwash for sale. When Mr. Smith became aware of the second listing, he wrote to plaintiffs asserting that the requested repairs had not been made, that he had not received a yearly recapitulation of sales activity from plaintiffs, as required under the lease, and that he would not consider assignment of the lease to Mr. Jensen at that time. Plaintiffs then refunded Mr. Jensen's down payment.
On August 20, 1976, plaintiffs, through their attorney, gave notice of their intention to renew the lease for the additional five year...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Plateau Min. Co. v. Utah Div. of State Lands and Forestry
...731 P.2d at 488. Failure to resolve an ambiguity by determining the parties' intent from parol evidence is error. Winegar v. Smith Inv. Co., 590 P.2d 348, 350 (Utah 1979). If a contract is ambiguous, the court may consider the parties' actions and performance as evidence of the parties' tru......
-
Ward v. Intermountain Farmers Ass'n
...Winegar v. Froerer Corp., 813 P.2d 104, 108 (Utah 1991); Fitzgerald v. Corbett, 793 P.2d 356, 358 (Utah 1990); Winegar v. Smith Inv. Co., 590 P.2d 348, 350 (Utah 1979); see also Plateau Mining Co. v. Utah Div. of State Lands & Forestry, 802 P.2d 720, 725 (Utah 1990) ("Parol evidence is gene......
-
Morris v. Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co.
...decide before it takes any evidence in clarification. Hibdon v. Truck Insurance Exchange, 657 P.2d 1358 (1983); Winegar v. Smith Investment Co., Utah, 590 P.2d 348, 350 (1979). More importantly, our more recent cases hold that even the resolution of contract ambiguities is a question of law......
-
Grow v. Marwick Development, Inc., 16675
...the monthly installment payments. The trial court did not err in its interpretation of the disputed phrase. 1 Winegar v. Smith Investment Company, Utah, 590 P.2d 348, 350 (1979).2 Thomas J. Peck & Sons, Inc. v. Lee Rock Products, Inc., 30 Utah 2d 187, 191, 515 P.2d 446 (1973); Big Butte Ran......