Title: Pizitz v. Ryan

State: alabama

Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court

Document:

403 So. 2d 222 (1981)
A. B. PIZITZ and Norman L. Pizitz
v.
Patricia H. RYAN.
80-136.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
August 28, 1981.
Earl E. Cloud and Joseph M. Cloud, Huntsville, for appellants.
Jack Giles, Huntsville, for appellee.
FAULKNER, Justice.
This is an appeal from a judgment in the Circuit Court of Madison County terminating the rights of defendants/lessees, Henry Marsh, Norman Pizitz, A. B. Pizitz, and Holiday Plaza Corporation, under a lease with plaintiff/lessor, Patricia Ryan.
Lessees entered into a lease agreement with Ryan whereby they would lease a vacant tract of land for the construction of a shopping center. The lease, which provided for an initial term of twenty years, further contained an option for automatic renewal "on the written request of the lessees made three (3) calendar months before the expiration of the term...." The expiration date was February 20, 1980; therefore, written request was required to be made in November, 1979. Lessee Marsh, allegedly mailed a written request on November 2, 1979, but plaintiff/lessor, Patricia Ryan, allegedly never received the letter.
On April 15, 1980, Ryan filed suit to terminate the lease. Lessees counterclaimed, averring that the option to renew had been properly exercised. Neither party requested a jury trial. On September 2, final judgment was entered for Ryan. Norman Pizitz and A. B. Pizitz appeal.
*223 The dispositive issue in this case is a factual onewhether lessee Marsh actually mailed a written request within the requisite time period in order to effect a valid exercise of the option to renew. The trial judge, after hearing the evidence ore tenus, determined that the appellants' rights under the lease terminated as of February 20, 1980, the expiration date of the twenty-year term.
This Court has previously determined that where, as here, the fact of posting is disputed, a question of fact for determination by the trier of fact is presented. Calkins v. Vaughan, 217 Ala. 56, 114 So. 570 (1927). In Calkins we stated:
In the instant case, the trial judge sat as the trier of fact. Our case law is very clear as to the strong presumption in favor of the Court's ruling in ore tenus cases. As emphasis, we quote, with approval, Wallace v. American Wholesale Corporation, 20 Ala.App. 642, 104 So. 776 (1925):
After a careful review of the record we conclude that there was sufficient evidence to support the judgment.
Appellants contend, however, that the trial judge misapplied the law to the facts. They argue that the judge erroneously equated "written request" with "notice" and that in so doing he imposed a higher standard of performance upon them for the valid exercise of the option than the lease itself contemplated. We disagree.
*224 To begin with, where, as in the instant case, "the trial judge's ruling is grounded on no specific ground, his judgment must be sustained on appeal if any good ground is presented." Sterling Oil of Oklahoma, Inc. v. Park, 291 Ala. 727, 287 So. 2d 847 (1973). An initial factual determination of the posting issue pretermitted the necessity of even reaching the "written request"/"notice" issue. It is of little or no consequence whether the mailing of the written request, as opposed to the receipt of the written request, constituted a valid exercise of the option to renew if, in fact, the request was never mailed within the requisite time period.
Moreover, the record indicates that neither party distinguished "written request" from "notice" in any of their pleadings or motions. To the contrary, "notice" was used synonymously with "written request" by both parties at the trial level. Appellants, therefore, are estopped from arguing any distinction on appeal.
Finally, appellants contend that equity should act to relieve a forfeiture under these circumstances. They cite cases from other jurisdictions as authority for the proposition that the following four circumstances, alleged by appellants to be present in the instant case, have been sufficient to invoke equity in these other jurisdictions: (1) vast improvements and expenditures to the premises, (2) large sums of money and resources, (3) financial risks, and (4) long periods of time and effort. Sosonie v. Pernetti Holding Corp., 115 N.J.Super. 409, 279 A.2d 904 (1971); Gallagher v. Marconi, 68 Misc.2d 319, 326 N.Y.S.2d 697 (D.Ct.1971). We disagree. The record fails to indicate any instances of "accident, mistake or special circumstances" sufficient to invoke equitable relief for appellants. See Gallagher v. Marconi, supra; Jones v. Gianferante, 305 N.Y. 135, 111 N.E.2d 419 (1953); Dugan v. Haige, 54 So. 2d 201 (Fla.1951).
The judgment of the trial court is due to be affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
TORBERT, C. J., and ALMON, EMBRY and ADAMS, JJ., concur.