Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

contractlawsuitplaintiffdefendantdamagesappealtriallease
plaintiffdefendantdamagesappealtrialleaseappellant

Related Cases

Rucker v. Wynn, 212 Ga.App. 69, 441 S.E.2d 417
View Case »
Kassan v. Stout, 9 Cal.3d 39, 507 P.2d 87, 106 Cal.Rptr. 783
View Case »
Morgan v. Wiser, 711 S.W.2d 220, 61 A.L.R.4th 1173
View Case »
Thompson v. Godfrey, 191 Kan. 102, 379 P.2d 269
View Case »
Sherk v. Indiana Waste Systems, Inc., 495 N.E.2d 815
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Sheradsky v. Basadre, 452 So.2d 599

Facts

In 1971, Sheradsky purchased the Colony House Apartments, which had a lease agreement from 1969 with County-Wide Commercial Laundries, Inc. for washing machines. The lease provided for automatic renewal unless terminated by written notice. Sheradsky was unaware of this lease and assumed a month-to-month tenancy. When he sold the property to Basadre and the Gorras in 1980, they removed County-Wide's machines, leading to the wrongful eviction lawsuit.

In 1971, appellant Sheradsky purchased the Colony House Apartments. Approximately two years earlier, the prior owners had entered into a purported business lease agreement whereby County-Wide Commercial Laundries, Inc. (now Commercial Laundries, Inc.) installed washing machines on the premises.

Issue

Whether the third-party defendant can appeal the original judgment despite the defendants/third-party plaintiffs not appealing, and whether the lease agreement contemplated a perpetual lease.

The novel procedural question presented is whether the third-party defendant may obtain relief from the third-party judgment by successfully challenging the merits of the original plaintiff's case, even though defendants/third-party plaintiffs have not taken an appeal from the original judgment.

Rule

In the absence of clear intent to create a lease in perpetuity, a covenant to renew is satisfied by one renewal. A third-party defendant may seek review of the original judgment to set aside an otherwise error-free third-party judgment.

In the absence of clear intent of the parties to create a lease in perpetuity, a covenant to renew is satisfied by one renewal.

Analysis

The court determined that the lease did not exhibit an intent for more than one renewal, thus no valid five-year lease was in effect. The wrongful eviction claim was valid as the purchasers resorted to self-help without following proper eviction procedures. The damages awarded for wrongful eviction were based on lost profits from a non-existent lease, which was erroneous.

The contested provision did not clearly exhibit an intent to provide for more than one renewal. Applying the just-cited authorities, we find error.

Conclusion

The court reversed the original judgment in part and remanded for a new trial on damages for wrongful eviction, while also reversing the third-party judgment in favor of the third-party defendant.

The original judgment is reversed in part and the cause remanded for a new trial on damages as to the wrongful eviction claim against the original defendants.

Who won?

The court ruled in favor of the third-party defendant, Sheradsky, because the original judgment against him was based on a non-existent lease, thus he could not have breached any contract.

Our holding on the first question is that, notwithstanding the failure of a defendant/third-party plaintiff to appeal, where there is error in the original judgment a third-party defendant may seek review of that judgment in an attempt to set aside the otherwise error-free third-party judgment.

You must be