2012 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

12-4-2012

G&S Livingston Realty Inc v. CVS Pharmacy Inc

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 12-1132

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2012

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2012 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"G&S Livingston Realty Inc v. CVS Pharmacy Inc" (2012). 2012 Decisions. Paper 80.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2012/80
NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 12-1132

_____________

G&S LIVINGSTON REALTY, INC.,

Appellant

v.

CVS PHARMACY, INC.

_____________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of New Jersey

(D.C. Civil No. 2-10-cv-00303)

District Judge: Honorable Susan D. Wigenton

_____________

Argued November 14, 2012

Before: RENDELL, FUENTES and CHAGARES, Circuit Judges

(Opinion Filed: December 4, 2012)

_____________

Agnes Antonian, Esq.

Kevin J. Coakley, Esq.

Nicole B. Dory, Esq.

Stephen V. Falanga, Esq. [ARGUED]

Connell Foley

85 Livingston Avenue

Roseland, NJ 07068

 Counsel for Appellant
2

Edith K. Altice, Esq.

Jason M. St. John, Esq. [ARGUED]

Saul Ewing

500 East Pratt Street, Suite 900

Baltimore, MD 21202

William C. Baton, Esq.

Saul Ewing

Suite 1520

One Riverfront Plaza

Newark, NJ 07102

Ruth A. Rauls, Esq.

Saul Ewing

750 College Road East, Suite 100

Princeton, NJ 08540

 Counsel for Appellee

_____________

OPINION OF THE COURT

_____________

RENDELL, Circuit Judge

Appellant G&S Livingston Realty, Inc. appeals the District Court’s denial of its 

motion for summary judgment and the District Court’s grant of Appellee CVS Pharmacy, 

Inc.’s motion for summary judgment. For the reasons discussed below, we will vacate 

and remand. 

.

I.

The facts of this case are undisputed. In June 1996, Lessor G&S Livingston 

Realty, Inc. (“G&S”) entered a lease with Lessee Linens ‘N Things, Inc. (“Linens”) for 

retail space in the Livingston Retail Center (the “Lease”). The Lease included a CoTenancy provision that states:
3

Landlord represents and warrants that it intends to enter into leases and/or 

operating agreements with at least two (2) nationally recognized retail 

tenants occupying at least twenty-five thousand (25,000) square feet each 

for initial terms expiring on or about the expiration of the Initial Lease 

Term. After such two (2) tenants initially open for business, if at all, 

thereafter if fewer than two (2) tenants occupying the minimum co-tenancy 

percentage are open for regular business, Tenant shall have the option to 

pay, as alternative rent in lieu of Annual Minimum Rent, its monthly Gross 

Sales, as defined in Exhibit I, multiplied by the three percent (3%), such 

product not to exceed its monthly installment of Annual Minimum Rent, in 

advance on or before the tenth (10th) day of the calendar month next 

following the month during which such sales were made (“Alternative 

Rent”). Tenant shall deliver copies of all sales figures for the Premises for 

the preceding calendar month on or before the tenth (10th) day of each 

month. If such condition persists for a period of twelve (12) consecutive 

months or more, Tenant shall have the right to cancel and terminate this 

Lease upon thirty (30) days notice to Landlord, such notice to be given at 

any time prior to the date the condition giving rise to such termination right

has been satisfied.

In connection with the Lease, Melville Corporation, Linens’s parent company, executed 

an unconditional guaranty that required it to pay rent and other sums due under the Lease 

to G&S if Linens defaulted (the “Guaranty”). CVS Pharmacy, Inc. (“CVS”), the 

successor to Melville, assumed the Guaranty. 

 In May 2008, Linens defaulted on its obligations under the Lease and filed for 

bankruptcy. In December 2008, it filed a notice rejecting the Lease and vacated the 

leased premises. In February 2009, G&S and CVS executed a settlement agreement that 

obligated CVS to pay the past due amounts that Linens owed under the Lease but 

reserved CVS’s rights to contest future demands for payments. Throughout 2009, G&S 

requested that CVS make payments that were due under the Lease, and CVS complied. 

CVS never assumed the Lease, and Linens did not assert any claims against G&S in its 

bankruptcy action.
4

In January 2010, CVS informed G&S that it was exercising Linens’s rights under 

the Co-Tenancy provision of the Lease and terminating the Lease because there were 

fewer than two co-tenants in the Retail Center for twelve consecutive months. In 

addition, CVS demanded that G&S repay it the rent it had paid in 2009, reasoning that it 

was entitled to pay the Alternative Rent for that period, and under the Alternative Rent 

formula, it owed nothing in rent. 

G&S brought suit against CVS, alleging among other things, that CVS breached 

the Guaranty, and seeking declaratory judgment that CVS was in material breach of the 

Guaranty and responsible for all accruing payments and expenses due under the Lease. 

G&S argued that CVS could not invoke the Co-Tenancy provision of the Lease because it 

was not a party to the Lease. G&S also argued that even if CVS could have exercised 

Linens’s rights under the Lease, the Lease was terminated in 2008 under the common law 

doctrine of surrender and/or when the Lease was rejected in bankruptcy and thus, 

Linens’s rights under the Co-Tenancy provision were no longer exercisable in 2010 when 

CVS attempted to assert them. 

CVS filed counterclaims against G&S seeking declaratory relief that it was 

entitled to pay the Alternative Rent as of January 1, 2009 and that it was entitled to 

terminate the Lease. In addition, CVS alleged that G&S breached the Lease by 

demanding that CVS pay the Annual Minimum Rent in 2009 when it should have only 

had to pay the Alternative Rent, and that it was entitled to recoup what it had paid in rent 

during that year because under the Alternative Rent formula, it owed nothing. 
5

Both G&S and CVS moved for summary judgment. The District Court denied 

G&S’s motion and granted in part and denied in part CVS’s motion. The Court held that 

the Lease was not terminated in 2008, and that CVS was allowed to exercise Linens’s

rights under the Co-Tenancy provision. The Court reasoned that, although it is a general 

rule that “when a creditor sues a guarantor but the principal debtor is not named in the 

action, the guarantor is not entitled to assert the claims of the principal debtor as defenses 

against the creditor,” it is a well-established exception that “when the principal is 

insolvent, the guarantor may set-off the principal’s claims against the creditor.” G&S 

Livingston Realty, Inc. v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., 2011 WL 6756948, at *3 (D.N.J. Dec. 21, 

2011) (internal citation omitted). The Court explained that because in the instant case, 

Linens was insolvent, CVS was entitled to affirmatively exercise Linens’s rights under 

the Lease, which allowed CVS to pay the Alternative Rent while there were fewer than 

two co-tenants in the Retail Center and to terminate the Lease if that condition persisted 

for twelve consecutive months. However, the Court also concluded that CVS could not 

recover the excess it paid over the Alternative Rent in 2009 because the Co-Tenancy 

provision gave CVS an option to pay the Alternative Rent, which it had failed to exercise

for that period.

G&S appeals the District Court’s ruling that the Lease did not terminate in 2008 

and that CVS was able to exercise Linens’s rights under the Lease and thereby pay 

nothing under the Guaranty. 
6

II.

We review a district court’s denial and grant of summary judgment de novo. 

Pichler v. UNITE, 542 F.3d 380, 385 (3d Cir. 2008). 

We conclude that the District Court erred in holding that under New Jersey law, a 

guarantor can affirmatively exercise a principal’s rights under a lease when the principal 

is insolvent. It is black letter law that if a creditor sues a guarantor, and the guarantor is 

not a party to the contract between the creditor and the principal or intended as a thirdparty beneficiary to the agreement, the guarantor cannot assert a right under, or enforce, 

the principal’s contract. First Nat’l Bank of N.J. v. Carlyle House, Inc., 102 N.J.Super. 

300, 322 (N.J. Super. Ct. Ch. Div. 1968), aff’d, 107 N.J. Super. 389 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. 

Div. 1969), certif. denied, 55 N.J. 316 (N.J. 1970) (“A party cannot enforce provisions of 

a contract to which he is not a privy, unless it is clear that the parties to the contract 

intended to confer upon him the right to enforce it.”). No authority has been cited to us 

that would permit a non-party, non-beneficiary, to exercise a right to terminate, or 

exercise an option under, a contract, as was done here. Here, CVS was not a party to the 

Lease between G&S and Linens nor was it intended as a third-party beneficiary to the 

agreement. Further, there is no language in the Lease, Guaranty, or settlement agreement 

that can be construed as granting CVS the ability to assert Linens’s rights under the 

Lease. Accordingly, we will reverse the District Court’s ruling that CVS could opt for 

the Alternative Rent and terminate the Lease. 

CVS relies on case law that provides that, as an exception to this general rule, a 

guarantor may assert a principal’s claim if the principal is insolvent, Coldwell Banker 
7

Real Estate, LLC v. Plummer & Assoc., Inc., 2009 WL 3230840, at *2 (D.N.J. Oct. 2, 

2009). However, that case law does not apply here because CVS was not asserting a

“claim” against G&S.12

Because we conclude that CVS could not, as a matter of law, affirmatively 

exercise Linens’s rights under the Co-Tenancy provision, we do not find it necessary to 

decide whether the Lease was terminated in 2008, as, pursuant to the terms of the 

Guaranty, that does not impact CVS’s obligations under the Guaranty. The Guaranty 

imposes an unconditional obligation on CVS that continues regardless of the status of the 

Lease. 

 G&S’s failure to maintain two co-tenants in the Retail Center 

was not a breach of the Lease; it merely triggered Linens’s option to pay the Alternative 

Rent and Linens’s right to terminate the Lease if the condition persisted—rights that 

Linens did not exercise. Linens had no claim against G&S under the Lease, and neither 

did CVS. 

 1 Appellant argues that even if Linens had a claim against G&S, CVS could not assert it 

because under New Jersey law, only sureties, and not guarantors, can assert a principal’s 

claim against a creditor if the principal is insolvent. Because we conclude that Linens 

does not have a claim that it could assert against G&S, we do not find it necessary to 

resolve this issue of New Jersey law.

2 Appellee cites Cinema North Corporation v. Plaza at Latham Associates, 867 F.2d 135 

(2d Cir. 1989) in support of its contention that CVS can exercise Linens’s contractual 

rights because Linens is insolvent. Cinema North, however, is clearly distinguishable. 

There, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, applying New York law, held that a 

guarantor, who negotiated a lease on behalf of the principal, could bring suit seeking 

specific performance of a lease because the guarantor was presumed to have the 

principal’s consent to do so, as the principal was a “corporation to be formed by, to be 

controlled by, and to have the same officers” as the guarantor. Id. at 139-40. 
8

For the reasons stated above, we will vacate the order of the District Court and 

remand for entry of judgment against, and assessment of amounts due and owing from, 

CVS.