Title: Tucker v. Richey

State: indiana

Issuer: Indiana Supreme Court

Document:

460 N.E.2d 964 (1984)
Fred C. TUCKER, Jr., John A. Wallace, Robert E. Houk, Edward J. Boleman, J. Kurt Mahrdt, Jr., George C. Charbonneau, James T. Schrage, Gary B. Warstler, John R. Jewett, Maurice C. Martindale, Hans T. French, Roy G. Altman, Herbert J. Backer, Don E. Ellis, General Partners, and Robert W. Wilds, Limited Partner, Individually, and d/b/a County Line 31 Company, an Indiana Limited Partnership, Appellants,
v.
Raymond M. RICHEY and Loretta L. Richey, Appellees.
No. 384 S 94.

Supreme Court of Indiana.
March 21, 1984.
*965 Richard E. Aikman, Jr., Stephen J. Peters, Stewart, Irwin, Gilliom, Fuller & Meyer, Indianapolis, Kent Frandsen, Parr, Richey, Obremsky & Morton, Lebanon, for appellants.
Milan D. Tesanovich, Portage, Michael Andreoli, Lebanon, Frederick Robinson, Indianapolis, for appellees.
James M. Barkley, Stephen R. Morris, Melvin Simon & Associates, Inc., Legal Dept., Indianapolis, for Melvin Simon & Associates, Inc. amicus curiae.
GIVAN, Chief Justice.
This cause comes before us on appellants' Petition to Transfer. We grant the Petition and thereby vacate the decision of the Court of Appeals reported at 448 N.E.2d 1206.
Raymond and Loretta Richey, appellees, became involved in a dispute concerning certain lease agreements between the Richeys, as tenants in the Greenwood Mall Shopping Center, and the landlord F.C. Tucker, Jr., et al. (Landlord), appellants. The Richeys ultimately filed suit against Landlord for breach of lease and sought punitive damages. The Boone Circuit Court granted partial summary judgment in favor of the Richeys and partial summary judgment in favor of Landlord. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Tucker v. Richey, (1983) Ind. App., 448 N.E.2d 1206.
On August 23, 1976, Landlord entered into a written lease agreement with lessee Indiana Ice Cream for premises designated as the B-5 site in the Greenwood Mall. Indiana Ice Cream is a real estate corporation for Indiana-Bressler's 33 Flavors Ice Cream shops. Pursuant to the terms of the lease, Indiana Ice Cream sublet the B-5 location to the Richeys so the Richeys could exercise their franchise agreement with Jack's 33 Flavors, an affiliate organization of Indiana Ice Cream, to operate a Bressler's 33 Flavors Ice Cream Shop in the mall.
Both the lease between Landlord and Indiana Ice Cream and the sublease executed by Indiana Ice Cream and the Richeys, contain identical provisions respecting Landlord's right to change or modify the plans and facilities of the shopping center, and specifically include the right to permit kiosks in the mall area.
The pertinent lease provisions are contained in paragraphs (1) and (15):
Mr. Richey understood the above terms to mean that the landlord had the right to construct temporary kiosks, such as entertainment and educational displays, although he testified, at his deposition, that no representations were made to him that Landlord would not permit permanent kiosks in the mall. The Richeys occupied the B-5 location and opened their Bressler's 33 Flavors Ice Cream Shop on October 4, 1976. In November, 1977, a permanent retail kiosk occupied by the "Peanut Shack" was erected near the Richeys' store in the Mall Common Area. A second kiosk was built to the east and north of the Peanut Shack and the Richeys' shop. The Richeys made several complaints to Landlord about the existence and location of the kiosks, and eventually vacated the B-5 location in June, 1981, after filing this action.
The trial court made no written findings of fact or conclusions of law. The grant of summary judgment was evidently based on a determination, as a matter of law, that (1) the lease language permitted only temporary advertising, entertainment, and educational kiosks; or, (2) the erection of permanent retail kiosks in the mall violated terms of the lease regarding changing the "general character" of the mall. The Court of Appeals affirmed the summary judgment below, finding the lease terms to be unambiguous and applying the "four corners" rule.
It is an oft repeated rule that courts will not rewrite parties' contracts. Prudential Insurance Co. of America v. Lancaster, (1966) 139 Ind. App. 292, 219 N.E.2d 607. The word "temporary" is not among the terms chosen by the parties in formulating their lease agreements. Although the lease is set out in a preprinted form, some provisions contained therein were stricken by the parties, and we assume that other terms could have been inserted, had that been the intent of the parties.
The word "kiosk" is defined in WEBSTER'S NEW WORLD DICTIONARY 777 (2d college ed. 1982) as follows:
One judicial definition of the term is found in City and County of Honolulu v. Ambler, (1981) 1 Hawaii App. 589, 590, 623 P.2d 92, 93 (as cited in 23A WORDS AND PHRASES, 1983 Supp., p. 43). Here "kiosk" is defined as a small structure used as a newsstand, entertainment booth or the like. In Ambler a gift shop was considered to be a kiosk. The dictionary and judicial definitions of a "kiosk" certainly contemplate a structure of a permanent or at least semipermanent nature used for retail sales, as opposed to the Court of Appeals' interpretation of a temporary advertising or entertainment display.
We find nothing in the quoted lease language to indicate the parties intended to limit Landlord's right to permit kiosks in the Mall Common Area to those of a temporary nature.
We disagree with the appellate court's interpretation of the lease provisions. We *967 find Judge Ratliff's construction to be more persuasive, and adopt his dissenting opinion:
Having determined Landlord expressly reserved the right to build kiosks in the Common Mall Area, we hold as a matter of law that the construction and maintenance of the Peanut Shack kiosk does not violate the lease nor the express covenant of quiet enjoyment. Needless to say, there being no entitlement to compensatory damages shown, there can be no punitive damage award.
We therefore vacate the Court of Appeals decision, and reverse and remand this cause for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
HUNTER, PRENTICE and PIVARNIK, JJ., concur.
DeBRULER, J., dissents with separate opinion.
DeBRULER, Justice, dissenting.
The written lease governs here, and pursuant to its terms the right was reserved in the landlord of the shopping center to "make changes, additions, deletions, alterations and improvements in and to such areas, and to permit advertising displays, entertainment and educational displays, and events, and kiosks thereon."
The key word in the provision is "permit". The landlord retained the right "to permit ... kiosks thereon." The synonym for it most favorable to the position of the landlord in this case would be "license". So understood the lease authorizes the landlord to license others to have "advertising displays, entertainment and educational displays, and events, and kiosks" within the mall common area. In essence it authorizes the landlord to license others to have "displays ... events, and kiosks" in the mall common area. The majority concludes that a kiosk is a small stand or booth of a semi-permanent nature. So understood, the lease simply authorizes the landlord to license others to use common mall area for "displays ... events" and small stands or booths of a semi-permanent nature.
Under the aegis of these lease provisions the landlord took exclusive possession of two parcels of the mall common area, and erected, or permitted the erection of, large permanent booths upon them, and received consideration from retailers in return for their exclusive occupancy. This constituted a lease and not a license. The creation of leasehold estates in discrete parcels within the mall common area resulted. Under the shopping center lease, the landlord reserved no right to grant and convey such estates in areas within the common mall. I agree with the trial court that there was a breach of the lease here, and would affirm the judgment.