Court Opinion

ID: 9576773
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:28:21.809093+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:15:29.644213
License: Public Domain

Judge Greene
dissenting.
There is no' competent evidence in this record to support the trial court’s finding of fact that defendant was not denied “the use and benefits to which he was entitled under the terms of the lease.” Accordingly, the conclusion of the trial court that defendant breached the lease is not supported by any finding of fact.
The lease specifically provided that defendant, as the lessee, had the “right to terminate [the] lease if at any time it is prevented from the full use and benefit and enjoyment of the building by reason of... any... cause beyond [its] control.” As repair of the leaking roof was the responsibility of plaintiff, any restriction of defendant’s use of the building, caused by the leaking roof, was “beyond” defendant’s control.
The remaining question is whether defendant was denied the “full use” of the building as a consequence of the leaking roof. On this question, the evidence is not in dispute. Indeed all the evidence in this record is that the leaking roof denied defendant the use of a part of the building, thus denying it “full use” of the building. The leaks forced defendant to remove displays from the front of the building whenever it rained, leaving empty spaces that otherwise would have contained defendant’s products. Due to the frequency of the leaks, defendant eventually removed products from shelves on the front wall of the building permanently and, instead, placed buckets on those shelves to catch the leaks. The leaks also forced defendant to remove displays from an aisle in the front of the building.
*270The fact that defendant remained in the building for an extended period of time during which the leaks occurred, does not constitute a waiver of defendant’s right to terminate the lease on this grounds.1 Indeed, plaintiff does not even make this argument. Furthermore, the fact that defendant did not notify plaintiff in writing of its reasons for vacating the premises is not material. The lease did not require written notice.
I therefore would reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand for entry of an order dismissing plaintiffs claims.

. There is no logic to suggest, a position adopted by the majority, that because defendant remained on the premises for over three years he “was not prevented from the full use and enjoyment of the building.”