Opinion ID: 571716
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The District Court's Denial of Green's Motion for J.N.O.V.

Text: 16 Green cites tenBraak v. Waffle Shops, Inc., 542 F.2d 919 (4th Cir.1976), for the proposition that a landlord who elects to re-enter the premises upon breach of a lease terminates the lease and limits his recovery to the amount of rent accrued. While this is an accurate statement of the general rule in Virginia, the parties in this case elected to contract on different terms, as was their right. It is well recognized, both at common law and under the law of Virginia, that parties to a contract of lease may modify their legal rights by provisions in the lease. tenBraak, 542 F.2d at 925 n. 8. In this case, Green and the Steins agreed in the lease agreement that [n]o such termination of this Lease nor recovering possession of the demised premises, however, shall deprive Landlord of any action or remedy against Tenant for possession, rent (accrued or to accrue) or damages.... Therefore, the district court properly refused Green's motion for j.n.o.v. concerning future rent. 5
17 Green argues that because there were no past due rents at the time of the lockout, no attorneys' fees were incurred by the Steins for the collection of delinquent rents. The pertinent provision in the lease agreement stated that [t]enant further agrees to pay ... any and all attorneys' fees and court costs incurred in connection with the collection of delinquent rents and all other sums due the Landlord under this lease. We must reject Green's argument because the contract provides for attorneys' fees incurred in collection of all other sums due the landlord under this lease and because the argument fails to consider that substantial attorneys' fees were incurred by the Steins before the lockout while the May rent was unpaid. 18 C. The District Court's Grant of the Steins' Motion for J.N.O.V. With Respect to Improvements 19 Paragraph 24 of the lease states that all improvements become the property of the landlord upon termination of the lease. In light of this provision and the principle that the law will not imply a quasicontract where there is an express contract absent fraud or undue influence, the district court held that it had erred in submitting the issue to the jury, and granted the defendants' motion for j.n.o.v. as to the award of improvements. On appeal, Green argues that he should be entitled to the value of the improvements because both parties expected that he would ultimately own the property. Again, we disagree. While both parties intended for Green to purchase the warehouse, the terms of their agreements show that they were aware of the risk that the lease would be terminated and that the sale might not be consummated. Should those events occur, the risk of loss of the value of improvements was to fall upon Green. The parties, of course, were represented by counsel, the negotiations were at arm's length, and there is no evidence of fraud or undue influence. 20 D. The District Court's Denial of the Steins' Motion for J.N.O.V. with Respect to Repairs 21 In denying j.n.o.v. with respect to repairs, the district court held that the award of the value of repairs was appropriate because the Steins had an express contractual obligation to make them. On appeal, the Steins admit that they were responsible for repairs under the terms of the purchase agreement, but claim that this duty did not arise until the closing of the sale of the warehouse. The relevant provision in the purchase agreement provides otherwise: 22 Notwithstanding the foregoing, Seller agrees to perform or cause Legum Furniture Corporation to perform the obligations of Legum Furniture Corporation to make certain repairs to the warehouse in accordance with the Legum Lease and the letter from Robert M. Stein to Harry Weisberg, dated October 16, 1987 (included in Exhibit F) or to cause such repairs to be made. 23 Nothing in this language makes this promise of the Steins conditioned upon closing the sale. In our view, therefore, the district court correctly denied the motion for j.n.o.v. on the award for repairs. 24 For the reasons stated above, the decision of the district court is affirmed. 25 AFFIRMED.