Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-04003/USCOURTS-ca10-92-04003-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT . FIL~u 

Unit.ed ~tat.es Court of A IF 

ROCK SPRINGS ASSOC . , a New York 

General Partnership; RICHARD CHWATT, 

a General Partner; GLEN CHWATT, a 

General Partner, 

Plaintiffs-Appellees, 

v. 

T & M KERSHISNIK INVESTMENT CO.; 

JOHN R. KERSHISNIK; EILEEN C. 

KERSHISNIK; THOMAS J. KERSHISNIK; 

MARY J. KERSHISNIK, 

Defendants-Appellants. 

JOHN R. KERSHISNIK; EILEEN C. 

KERSHISNIK, 

Counter-Claimants, 

v. 

RICHARD CHWATT; GLEN CHWATT, 

Counterclaim-Defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

renth Circuit ppea 

FEBO 8 1993 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk · 

) No. 92-4003 

) (D.C. No. 89-C-555-J) 

) (D. Utah) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ROCK SPRINGS ASSOC., a New York General) 

Partnership; RICHARD CHWATT, a General ) 

Partner; GLEN CHWATT, General Partner, ) 

Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

V. 

T & M KERSHISNIK INVESTMENT CO.; 

JOHN R. KERSHISNIK; EILEEN C. 

KERSHISNIK; THOMAS J. KERSHISNIK; 

MARY J. KERSHISNIK, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 92-4005 

(D .C. No. 89-C- 555-J) 

(D. Utah) 

Appellate Case: 92-4003 Document: 010110170307 Date Filed: 02/08/1993 Page: 1 
) 

JOHN R. KERSHISNIK; EILEEN C. ) 

KERSHISNIK, ) 

) 

Counter-Claimants, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

ROCK SPRINGS ASSOC.; RICHARD CHWATT; ) 

GLEN CHWATT, ) 

) 

Counterclaim-Defendants. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before TACHA and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges, and BROWN,** Senior 

District Judge.*** 

**Honorable Wesley E. Brown, Senior District Judge, United States 

District Court for the District of Kansas, sitting by designation. 

Defendants T & M Kershisnik Investment Company, and Thomas, 

Mary, John, and Eileen Kershisnik (the lessors) appeal from the 

entry of summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs Rock Springs 

Associates and Richard and Glen Chwatt (the lessees), in this 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

*** After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of these appeals. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cases are therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

2 

Appellate Case: 92-4003 Document: 010110170307 Date Filed: 02/08/1993 Page: 2 
dispute over the proper interpretation of a lease executed between 

the parties. The lessees cross-appeal the district court's order 

denying their request for prejudgment interest and attorney's 

fees. We affirm the liability determination of the district 

court, but reverse the denial of prejudgment interest and 

attorney' s fees and remand for further consideration of those 

issues. 

Appeal No. 92-4003 

These parties are the lessors and lessees, respectively, on a 

series of ground leases executed to cover real property in Rock 

Springs, Wyoming. All the leases were created in conjunction with 

the construction of a shopping center on the premises. The three 

leases, which contain substantially the same language, were 

executed in the 1970s. They cover four different parcels in the 

shopping center complex. The pertinent contracts are designated 

as lease AB , lease C, and lease D. We refer to them collectively 

as the ground leases. 

These leases require lessees to pay to lessors a percentage 

rent, above and beyond the fixed rent found in the leases, based 

on the amount of rent they receive from sublessees. This payment 

is designated as "overage rent." Specifically, lease AB states: 

[i]t is understood between the Lessors and the 

Lessee that the Lessee intends to sublet the premises to 

various sublessees and that the Lessee will attempt to 

negotiate with sublessees in such a manner that they 

will pay Lessee a fixed rent plus a percentage on gross 

profits, gross sales or some other type of ove rage rent 

payment . It is agreed that Lessee will pay over to the 

Lessors twelve percent {12%) of all bonuses, overages 

collected or percentage rent paid over a fixed rent 

received by the Lessee from sublessees or tenants. 

3 

Appellate Case: 92-4003 Document: 010110170307 Date Filed: 02/08/1993 Page: 3 
Appellants' App. Ex. A 1 at 3. The other ground leases contain 

similar language. 

For many years, lessees calculated their overage rent payment 

using the net amount of overage rent they received from the 

sublessees as a base. They subtracted amounts the sublessees paid 

in insurance, taxes, and common area maintenance prior to 

calculating profits. This was done pursuant to language in the 

subleases. For example, lessees' written sublease with 

Albertson's grocery store states: 

[r]ent shall consist of a minimum annual 

rental . . and a percentage rent in the amount by 

which One and one-half percent (1 - 1/2%) of Gross Sales 

in each Fiscal Year exceeds an amount which is the sum 

of the minimum annual rent for that Fiscal Year and the 

sums paid by Tenant under Article 7 (Common Area 

Maintenance) , Article 8 (Taxes) and Article 15 (Damage 

by Casualty) . 

Appellees' App. at 138 . Likewise, a clause in lessees' sublease 

with Thrifty Drugstore allows overage rent to be calculated based 

on a formula allowing subtraction of insurance payments, property 

taxes, and common area expenses . Id. at 200. 

Lessors approved these formulas through their recognition o f 

the subleases as a whole. They signed attornment agreements with 

Discount Drugstores (Thrifty's) and Albertson's which acknowledge 

the validity of the subleases. See id. at 155, 167, 205-06. The 

Albertson's attornment agreement, as well as ground leases C and 

D, also contains a specific provision stating that in the event of 

1 The twelve percent figure was later 

percent. See id. at Ex. B. 

4 

amended to thirty-fiv e 

Appellate Case: 92-4003 Document: 010110170307 Date Filed: 02/08/1993 Page: 4 
conflicts with the main ground lease, the sublease will control. 

2 See id. at 167, 106, 129. 

In 1988, lessors informed lessees they were calculating 

overage rent under an improper formula. They asserted that the 

ground leases required overage rent payments based on gross 

profits, unaffected by insurance payments, property taxes, or 

maintenance costs. In the spring of 1989, lessors demanded 

lessees make up the difference owed. Lessees paid approximately 

$77,000 under protest, then brought this action. 

This is a contractual dispute. Consequently, the usual rules 

of contract interpretation apply. See Automatic Gas Distribs .• 

Inc. v. State Bank, 817 P.2d 441, 442 (Wyo. 1991) (leases are 

contractual in nature). The district court determined that 

neither the ground leases nor the subleases are ambiguous. The 

court found no genuine issues of material fact precluding summary 

judgment, and, therefore, enforced the leases according to their 

plain meaning, in favor of lessees. See Russillo v. Scarborough, 

935 F.2d 1167, 1170 (10th Cir. 1991). We review that 

determination de novo. Applied Genetics Int'l, Inc. v. First 

Affiliated Sec., Inc. , 912 F.2d 1238, 1241 (10th Cir. 1990). 

"'If the language of the contract is plain and unequivocal 

that language is controlling and the interpretation of the 

contractual provisions is for the court to make as a matter of 

law.'" Automatic Gas Distribs., 817 P.2d at 442 (quoting Shepard 

2 Albertson's and Thrifty Drugstores are the 

the AB ground lease. 

5 

main tenants of 

Appellate Case: 92-4003 Document: 010110170307 Date Filed: 02/08/1993 Page: 5 
v. Top Hat Land & Cattle Co., 560 P.2d 730, 732 (Wyo . 1977)) . 

This comports with the general rule that when parties agree to 

contract terms, those terms will control if they are plainly 

stated in the agreement. See Colorado Interstate Gas Co . v. 

Natural Gas Pipeline Co., No. 91-151, 1992 WL 354896, at *2 (Wyo. 

Dec. 3, 1992). Furthermore, the parties' disagreement over the 

meaning of language in the contract is not dispositive of the 

existence of ambiguity. Berger v. Teton Shadows Inc., 820 P.2d 

176, 176-77 (Wyo. 1991). Rather, the court must interpret the 

language in the contract according to its common and ordinary 

meaning. See State ex rel. Farmers Ins. Exch. v. District Court, 

No. 92-80, 1993 WL 2009, at *2 (Wyo. Jan. 8, 1993). 

The ground leases contain language urging the lessees to 

negotiate subleases which require the payment of overage rent 

based on gross profits. Appellees' App. at 61. They also contain 

language stating the intent of the parties that the lessors 

receive rents "free from all taxes, expenses, charges, damages and 

deductions." Id. at 62. In contrast, the subleases allow 

calculation of overage rent based on profits determined after the 

payment of taxes, insurance, and maintenance. The ground leases 

and attornment agreements state, however, that the terms of the 

sublease will control in the event of a conflict . Because the 

subleases control, the lessees' actions were appropriate. The 

district court correctly granted summary judgment . 

Appeal No. 92-4005 

Lessees maintain they are entitled to prejudgment interest 

and attorney's fees. The district court denied these requests 

6 

Appellate Case: 92-4003 Document: 010110170307 Date Filed: 02/08/1993 Page: 6 
without explanation in its judgment on the liability issue. 

Because we hold that Wyoming law supports lessees' argument, we 

reverse the district court and remand for a determination of the 

proper amounts to award in both prejudgment 

attorney's fees. 

interest and 

Each of the ground leases at issue contains a provision 

allowing for attorney's fees in the event of litigation under the 

contract. The relevant clause states: 

In the event of any suit instituted by either party 

against the other in any way connected with this Lease 

or for recovery of possession of the premises, the 

successful party to any such action shall recover from 

the other a reasonable attorney's fee, which fee is to 

be fixed by the Court. 

Appellees' App. at 71, 107, 131. This clause is enforceable under 

Wyoming law. Stanbury v. Larsen, 803 P.2d 349, 355 (Wyo. 

1990). The district court erred in failing to enforce it here. 

Consequently, the case must be remanded for the district court's 

consideration of the proper amount of attorney's fees to award. 

Prejudgment interest is allowed under Wyoming law on 

liquidated claims. Rissler & McMurry Co. v. Atlantic Richfield 

Co., 559 P.2d 25, 31 (Wyo. 1977). A claim is liquidated for 

purposes of this rule if it is "readily computable by simple 

mathematical computation." Id. A liability controversy, in and 

of itself, does not make a claim unliquidated. Bueno v. CF&I 

Steel Corp., 773 P.2d 937, 940 (Wyo. 1989). The amount remains 

liquidated if it can be determined from the contractual agreement. 

7 

Appellate Case: 92-4003 Document: 010110170307 Date Filed: 02/08/1993 Page: 7 
The vast majority of the damages awarded to lessees in this 

case were very easily identified as those amounts paid under 

protest. The remainder were stipulated following the entry of 

summary judgment, and were determinable based on the formulas 

provided in the contract. The heated debate between these parties 

with respect to what was owed , and to whom, is not dispositive 

here. Because the damages were easily calculated from the 

parties' agreements, the claim is a liquidated sum. Consequently, 

prejudgment interest should be awarded. 

The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

District of Wyoming is AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and 

REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this order and 

judgment. 

Entered for the Court 

Bobby R. Baldock 

Circuit Judge 

8 

Appellate Case: 92-4003 Document: 010110170307 Date Filed: 02/08/1993 Page: 8