Title: Mays v. Middle Iowa Realty Corp.
Citation: 202 Kan. 712, 452 P.2d 279
Docket Number: 45,263
State: Kansas
Issuer: Kansas Supreme Court
Date: March 8, 1969

202 Kan. 712 (1969)
452 P.2d 279
NELLIE M. MAYS, Appellant,
v.
MIDDLE IOWA REALTY CORP., a Corporation; MACE SIEGEL and RICHARD COHEN, d/b/a MACERICH REAL ESTATE COMPANY; and ARLAN'S DEPT. STORE OF TOPEKA, a Corporation, Appellees.
No. 45,263

Supreme Court of Kansas.
Opinion filed March 8, 1969.
T.M. Murrell, of Topeka, argued the cause, and Kay McFarland, of Topeka, was with him on the brief for the appellant.
*713 Mark L. Bennett, of Topeka, argued the cause, and Steven J. Kumble, of New York, New York, Harry W. Colmery, Clayton M. Davis, Wilbur G. Leonard, Robert A. McClure, Jerry W. Hannah, and Frank C. Sabatini, all of Topeka, were with him on the brief for the appellees.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
HATCHER, C.:
This was an action initiated under the declaratory judgment act for the purpose of obtaining judicial construction of a written lease and a determination of the rights of the parties thereunder.
Summary judgment was rendered in favor of the defendants and plaintiff has appealed.
The controversy presented is whether, under the terms of the lease, the plaintiff, the lessor, was obligated to sign a mortgage subjecting her fee interest to the payment of a loan to the lessee without being provided with the actual cost of improvements made by the lessee.
The parties have, for the purpose of reducing a somewhat voluminous record, stipulated 
The lease provided for an annual rental payment of $18,000.
The record contains section 33, the material provisions here, of the sixty-five page indenture which covers the lease agreement. Section 33 contains several subsections, all pertaining to the right to mortgage the premises.
Subsection (a) prohibits the lessor from placing any mortgage or encumbrance on her fee interest in the premises for her own special benefit.
Subsection (b) extends mortgage rights to the lessee in the following language:
Subsection (c) reads in part:
Subsection (d) (2) provides that each permitted mortgage shall contain a provision exculpating the lessor and lessee from any personal liability for any default under the mortgage.
Subsection (f) defines the terms "mortgage" and "Permitted Mortgage" 
A rider was attached to section 33 of the lease, at the request of lessor's attorney, which did to some extent limit the amount of the mortgage. It reads:
In her petition the plaintiff stated the controversy in the following language:
The defendants' answer admits that a serious controversy has existed between plaintiff and defendants which controversy, they claim, resulted from the failure of the plaintiff to "perform her duties under the express, plain and unambiguous terms of said indenture of lease" after defendants' demand upon plaintiff to so perform.
After the issues were framed and the instruments placed before the court in the form of exhibits, the defendants moved for summary judgment for the reason that there was "no genuine issue of any material fact and that the defendants herein are entitled to *716 judgment as a matter of law." The trial court, after hearing extensive arguments, stated:
Counsel for plaintiff requested and received permission to make an offer of proof. He stated:
Counsel then listed the prospective witnesses which he thought would so testify.
The trial court then stated:
Summary judgment was rendered in favor of the defendants and plaintiff has appealed.
Regardless of the numerous classifications made in her argument, we summarized the real issue sought to be established by appellant  does appellant have the right to refuse to subordinate her land to a mortgage until defendants have furnished her information as to the cost of construction, and does appellant have the further right to refuse to sign the mortgage unless the "cost of construction," as appellant interprets that term, is as much as the face of the mortgage?
*717 In support of the above issue appellant contends that the terms of the contract of lease are ambiguous and that oral evidence should have been received to show the intention of the parties. More specifically the appellant contends that section 33 of the lease, which we have quoted in part and summarized in part, is ambiguous and could not fully settle the rights of the parties without extrinsic evidence.
The appellant, having made the contention that the lease is ambiguous, follows with the contention that summary judgment was improper because a genuine issue of material fact existed.
We find but a single simple issue will dispose of this controversy  is the contract ambiguous? If it is not, no genuine issue of fact existed.
This court has announced a few rules which will aid us in determining whether or not an ambiguity exists in the contract of lease under consideration.
There can be no ambiguity in a written agreement unless after the application of pertinent rules of construction there is left a genuine uncertainty which of two or more possible meanings was intended by the parties. In State v. Downey, 198 Kan. 564, 568, 426 P.2d 55, we stated the rule as follows:
In determining whether a written contract was ambiguous, we held in Wood v. Hatcher, 199 Kan. 238, 428 P.2d 799:
Subsection (f) of section 33 provides in clear language for two types of permitted mortgages  "permanent financing" and "interim building and construction financing." We are concerned here only with "permanent financing." As the appellees carry their own *718 interim financing no controversy has been presented on that issue.
Subsection (h) of section 33 in clear and specific language limits the amount of the mortgage to the amount determined by multiplying the aggregate number of square feet of floor space in all buildings constructed on the premises times $13 per square foot. It is not denied that the amount of the mortgage is well below the sum so arrived at.
The rider to section 33, subparagraph (h) was proposed by appellant and goes directly to the subject of a limit on the amount of a mortgage to which appellant's fee interest would be subordinated. If appellant had been able to negotiate further limitations in that regard, this would have been the place where such further limitations should and would have appeared. Not having done so, the lease as executed by the parties is binding on the parties without such limitation.
Appellant appears to argue that the plain language of section 33, and particularly the rider to section 33 (h), is ambiguous for the express reason that it does not contain a provision giving plaintiff the right to refuse to subordinate her fee interest to a mortgage unless the amount of the mortgage is not more than the "cost of construction" of the improvements built on the premises. The mere fact that it does not appear in the lease does not in and of itself establish that the lease is ambiguous.
Actually, the appellant is not asking us to construe an ambiguous instrument but is in effect asking us to add to the terms already covered by the contract.
Where the parties expressly contract under what circumstances an obligation may arise with reference to a certain subject matter, and the contract is entered into without fraud, coercion or mistake, the rights of the contracting parties are measured by the provisions of the contract. (G.S. Johnson Co. v. N. Sauer Milling Co., 148 Kan. 861, 84 P.2d 934; see, also, Duvanel v. Sinclair Refining Co., 170 Kan. 483, 227 P.2d 88.)
In Wood v. Hatcher, 199 Kan. 238, 428 P.2d 799, we stated at page 242
Applying the above rules to the lease under consideration, we find no ambiguity in the agreement. We continue to adhere to the well established rule, which has been frequently applied, that where parties have carried on negotiations and have subsequently entered into an agreement in writing with respect to the subject matter covered by such negotiations the written agreement determines their rights. In Williams v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 198 Kan. 331, 424 P.2d 541, we so stated at page 338:
What has been said applies with equal force to appellant's claim of right to introduce evidence of inequitable and unconscionable conduct on the part of the appellees in their effort to enforce performance of the agreement. No further discussion of that matter is required. However, we do not mean to infer by the above statement that the conduct was unconscionable under the circumstances.
The lease not being ambiguous, evidence was not admissible to vary its terms. There being no genuine issue of fact, the question was ripe for determination on a motion for summary judgment. We disposed of this question in Potter v. Northern Natural Gas Co., 201 Kan. 528, 441 P.2d 802, where we stated at page 530:
The judgment is affirmed.
APPROVED BY THE COURT.