Quick Summary
Jack Kendall et al. (plaintiffs) attempted to assume a sublease as part of purchasing Flight Services from Robert Bixler, but Ernest Pestana, Inc. (defendant) refused consent to the lease assignment without more burdensome terms. The plaintiffs challenged this refusal as unreasonable.
The issue before the Supreme Court of California was whether a lessor can withhold consent to a lease assignment unreasonably in the absence of a clause stating otherwise. The court concluded that consent may only be withheld for commercially reasonable objections.
Facts of the Case
Jack Kendall, Grady O’Hara, and Vicki O’Hara (plaintiffs) sought to purchase an airplane maintenance business, Flight Services, from Robert Bixler, which included a sublease for hangar space at the San Jose Municipal Airport. The original lease was between the City of San Jose and Irving and Janice Perlitch, who then assigned their interest to Ernest Pestana, Inc. (defendant).
Bixler’s sublease, acquired from the Perlitches, was set to last for 25 years starting January 1, 1970, with options to renew every five years. The agreement stipulated that the lessee could not assign or sublet without the lessor’s prior written consent. When the plaintiffs agreed to buy Bixler’s business, they also aimed to assume the existing lease. They were financially robust compared to Bixler and agreed to adhere to the lease terms.
However, Ernest Pestana, Inc. refused consent to the lease assignment unless increased rent and more burdensome terms were agreed upon. This prompted the plaintiffs to challenge the refusal as an unreasonable restraint on alienation and seek declaratory relief.
Procedural History
- Robert Bixler entered into an agreement to sell his business to Kendall and others, including the lease assignment.
- Ernest Pestana, Inc. refused to consent to the lease assignment, demanding more onerous terms.
- Kendall brought suit against Ernest Pestana, Inc., claiming their refusal was an unreasonable restraint on alienation.
- The lower court ruled in favor of Ernest Pestana, Inc.
- Kendall appealed to the Supreme Court of California.
I.R.A.C. Format
Issue
Whether a lessor can unreasonably and arbitrarily withhold consent to an assignment of a commercial lease in the absence of a provision stating that such consent will not be unreasonably withheld.
Rule of Law
The law generally favors free alienability of property interests, and contractual restrictions on this are permitted but strictly construed against the lessor. A lessor should not unreasonably withhold consent to lease assignments without a valid commercial justification.
Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court of California reviewed precedents and noted a trend towards rejecting arbitrary refusals by lessors to consent to assignments. The court found that both the policy against restraints on alienation and the implied contractual duty of good faith and fair dealing supported a rule that consent may be withheld only for commercially reasonable objections.
The court emphasized that the lessor’s right to select a tenant is protected by allowing refusal based on reasonable commercial grounds and that the original lessee remains liable for lease obligations even after assignment.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court of California reversed the lower court’s ruling, holding that Ernest Pestana, Inc.’s refusal to consent must be based on commercially reasonable grounds.
Dissenting Opinions
Justice Lucas dissented, stating that the majority’s ruling requiring a “commercially reasonable objection” for lease assignment refusal would lead to unnecessary litigation and that parties should be free to contract without such limitations unless expressly provided by legislation.
Key Takeaways
- The court established that free alienability of property interests is favored in law and lessors should not unreasonably restrain it.
- Commercial leases with clauses requiring lessor consent for assignment must be interpreted under the duty of good faith and fair dealing inherent in every contract.
- The Supreme Court of California set precedent that withholding consent for lease assignments must be based on commercially reasonable grounds.
Relevant FAQs of this case
What are the acceptable commercial grounds for a lessor to refuse consent to a lease assignment?
Acceptable commercial grounds can include the financial stability of the assignee, their business reputation, or the legality and suitability of the proposed use of the property. The lessor must show that their refusal is based on rational business concerns related to these or similar factors.
- For example: A lessor reasonably refuses consent because the prospective assignee has a known track record of defaulting on rent payments.
How does the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing affect restrictions on alienation in contracts?
This implied duty requires that contracting parties do not act in a way that will destroy or injure the right of the other party to receive the benefits of the contract. Therefore, restrictions on alienation must be exercised in good faith and for a legitimate commercial purpose, not just for arbitrary or capricious reasons.
- For example: If a lease contains a restriction on subletting, the lessor cannot arbitrarily deny permission simply because they dislike the sublessee; there must be a genuine business concern.
What constitutes an unreasonable restraint on alienation in contract clauses?
An unreasonable restraint on alienation occurs when a contract clause excessively restricts a party’s ability to transfer their interest in property, such as prohibitions that are unlimited in time, overly broad in scope, or not connected to any legitimate business interest.
- For example: A perpetual clause preventing any sale or sublease without the lessor’s consent could be seen as unreasonable since it unreasonably ties the hands of the lessee forever.
References
Was this case brief helpful?