Opinion ID: 2586150
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Termination of Written Contract.

Text: Neither the district court nor the Court of Appeals discussed the possible impact of paragraph 9 of the written lease between Gene and David. Paragraph 9 provided: [I]f the tenant shall fail to keep and perform any of the covenants, agreements, or conditions of this lease, the Landlord may re-enter and take possession of the premises without working a forfeiture of the rents to be paid by the Tenant for the full term of this lease. At his election, the Landlord may terminate this lease, or without terminating, re-let the premises or any part thereof for the remainder of the lease term and may recover any deficiency from the Tenant. Paragraph 4 of the lease agreement contained several broadly worded obligations of the tenant, including the obligations to cultivate, fertilize and manage the farm in a husbandlike manner and to take good care of all growing . . . crops. By operation of the provisions of paragraph 9, if the tenant, whether the tenant be David or his heirs, failed to meet these conditions, Gene had the right to reenter, take possession of, and relet the premises. Generally, courts enforce clauses in commercial leases that reserve a landlord's right to peaceably reenter commercial premises and regain possession if a tenant breaches a material obligation. See 49 Am.Jur.2d, Landlord and Tenant §§ 832, 833. K.S.A. 58-2506, by excepting written contracts from its provisions, does not mandate a different result for farm leases. Therefore, such a clause in a written farm lease will be enforced by the courts. The provisions of paragraph 9 do not require any notice to the tenant or any other affirmative action by the landlord. Hence, under paragraph 9 of the written lease, Gene could terminate the contract without notice. Even assuming there was an implied requirement that notice be given in order for there to be a termination of the lease, it was satisfied because, as found by the district court, the coadministrators had actual knowledge that Spencer was farming the property. Before discussing whether the circumstances allowed Gene to exercise his rights under paragraph 9, we will address Gene's arguments that under common-law principles the other landlords had the same rights to renter their land and negotiate new leases.