Court Opinion

ID: 9531054
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:06:57.707129+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:19.868380
License: Public Domain

RIGGS, J.,
dissenting.
The majority acknowledges that the authorities are in conflict concerning whether the duty of good faith and fair dealing controls the manner in which contractual rights are exercised. Among these conflicting authorities, the majority chooses to rely on language in Abrahamson v. Brett, 143 Or 14, 21 P2d 229 (1933), which we described as a dictum in Chiles v. Robertson, 94 Or App 604, 629, 767 P2d 903, rev den 308 Or 592 (1989). Although it was unnecessary to directly review the rule of Abrahamson in Chiles, Chiles strongly implies that the rule oí Abrahamson has been superseded by the rule requiring good faith in the performance and enforcement of all contracts. See, e.g., Best v. U.S. National Bank, 303 Or 557, 561, 739 P2d 554 (1987). Because the broad language of Best cannot be reconciled with the holding of Abrahamson, I believe that the Supreme Court would overrule Abrahamson if squarely presented with the issue today.
Anti-assignment clauses protect a landlord from assignment of a lease to a less desirable tenant. Here, the new tenant was, for all practical purposes, the old tenant. Landlord’s refusal to consent to a transfer from the original tenant to a nearly identical entity breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. A simple desire to improve one’s position is not a reasonable ground to refuse consent to an assignment. Chiles v. Robertson, supra, 94 Or App at 631.
There is a nationwide trend to require landlords to act reasonably in connection with consents to assignment or *409sublease. See, e.g., Campbell v. Westdahl, 148 Ariz 432, 715 P2d 288 (1985); Boss Barbara, Inc. v. Newbill, 97 NM 239, 638 P2d 1084 (1982). The modern rule is also embodied in the Restatement (Second) Property § 15.2(2) (1977). Oregon courts have previously followed the Restatement (Second) Property. See, e.g., Sunset Fuel & Engineering Co. v. Compton, 97 Or App 244, 775 P2d 901, rev den 308 Or 466 (1989). Section 15.2(2) provides:
“A restraint on alienation withhout the consent of the landlord of the tenant’s interest in the leased property is valid, but the landlord’s consent to an alienation by the tenant cannot be withheld unreasonably, unless a freely negotiated provision in the lease gives the landlord an absolute right to withhold consent.”
The lease in this case does not include a provision granting the landlord an absolute right to withhold consent. We should not imply one.
When we come to a fork in the road, we need not, like Robert Frost, “take the road less travelled by.” We should take the better road. Here, the better road is to follow the modern trend represented by Best and the Restatement.
I dissent.