Opinion ID: 2501833
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: FMC's Breach of Contract Claim against City

Text: Following the circuit court's order granting summary judgment in favor of Frazier & Oxley and against FMC in the eviction case, FMC filed a breach of contract claim against City on or about April 9, 2004, alleging City breached the terms of the Lease Termination Agreement. As indicated above, the LTA executed on September 27, 2000, by FMC and City, in relevant part, recounted that a lease agreement had been entered into for that certain banking facility located on the ground floor and mezzanine located in the St. James Building at Tenth Street and Fourth Avenue[.] The LTA further provided that for and in consideration of the premises which are not mere recitals, but are an integral part of this agreement. ... [t]hat certain lease ... dated November 1, 1979 is hereby terminated effective October 31, 2000, at which time possession of the main banking facility located within the St. James Building will be surrendered to FMC. In its complaint against City, FMC alleged, inter alia, that [i]n the recitals of the Lease Termination Agreement, the `banking facility' was described as the ground floor and mezzanine located in St. James and that at the end of the October 31, 2000, term, the Main Banking Facility would be vacated. The complaint further alleged that under the LTA, City was to deliver to [FMC] possession of the main banking facility, which included the ground floor and Mezzanine which was occupied by [Frazier & Oxley], on November 1, 2000. ... [FMC] has not received possession of part of the main banking facility known as the mezzanine as it is occupied by Frazier & Oxley. Ultimately, the circuit court granted summary judgment, ruling on various legal theories in favor of City. [11] In its order entered March 23, 2009, the court determined, as an initial matter, that the only issue remaining in this case is whether there was a surrender of the prime lease. It then concluded that the doctrine of collateral estoppel applies to bar FMC's breach of contract claim against City. The court further determined that, even if collateral estoppel does not apply to bar FMC's breach of contract claim, City was excused from performing under the LTA because, having surrendered the prime lease, it was legally impossible for City to require Frazier & Oxley, its subtenant whose rights were not impacted by the surrender, to vacate the mezzanine. The circuit court also found certain terms of the LTA to be ambiguous. Specifically, the LTA provided, in relevant part, that a lease agreement had been entered into for that certain banking facility located on the ground floor and mezzanine located in the St. James Building[.] (Emphasis added) The LTA further provided [t]hat certain lease ... dated November 1, 1979 is hereby terminated effective October 31, 2000, at which time possession of the main banking facility located within the St. James Building will be surrendered to FMC. (Emphasis added) The circuit court proceeded to construe the evidence against FMC as the party who drafted the LTA and to interpret the evidence as proving that Mr. Hankins drafted the agreement with the knowledge that Frazier & Oxley occupied the mezzanine offices pursuant to a sublease with City. The court concluded that the LTA did not impose upon City a contractual obligation to surrender the mezzanine, which was occupied by Frazier & Oxley. [12] It is from the circuit court's order granting summary judgment in favor of City that FMC now appeals.