Opinion ID: 1136438
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: the duty to repair

Text: Kate complains that the district court erred in finding that correction of the structural deficiencies listed in the city inspector's report would constitute major repairs and that it was her duty as landlord of the master lease to make the repairs. The pertinent provisions of the master lease, in paragraphs 5(c) and 9, cited in footnotes 2 and 3, supra, are dispositive of this issue. It is clearly expressed therein that the Lessor shall    make all major repairs to all of the demised personal and real property and that Lessee shall not be required to make any structural alterations or structural repairs to the demised premises or be obligated for the cost of any alterations or repairs required by any order by any Federal, State, or Municipal authority with respect thereto or the occupancy thereof, unless the same shall be made necessary by the act or negligence of the Lessee. There is nothing in the record to indicate that the structural deficiencies cited by the city were in any way the result of any act or negligence of the Lessee. Rather, the record shows that Winkel spent some $60,000 in remodeling and repairing the premises. Further, if an issue did in fact exist as to whether the correction of the deficiencies constituted major repairs, it could have been easily resolved by arbitration, as provided in the lease. The lessees were anxious to go to arbitration and had even nominated their arbitrator; then Kate commenced this action, preventing them from proceeding. She may not now be heard to complain, as the court's finding is amply supported by the record.