Court Opinion

ID: 9759622
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 00:22:24.716832+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:03.499408
License: Public Domain

OPINION ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
On rehearing, Alexander, the appellant in this case, contends that we erred in affirming the trial court’s judgment because the property in question, i.e., the car-wash *648equipment, did not constitute “improvements” on the premises under the lease agreement. Appellant also contends that the car-wash equipment was not in any sense attached to the really, to the foundation, or to the walls of the structure which housed the car wash.
On direct-examination, Cleo Cooper (lessor) was asked what type of improvements Alexander (lessee) placed on the leased premises. He responded, in relevant part, that “[tjhere was a carwash that was put in right here, a brick building was erected there and a carwash was bolted to the foundation and to the walls of the structure.” He also testified that Alexander cut the bolts in order to remove the car wash.
Wayne Wolf, the person who worked for the company which sold the car wash to Alexander and installed it on the premises, explained that his company installed a car wash by bolting a boom mount to the wall. Next, the track and the guide rails were bolted to the concrete floor, and the car-wash equipment was rolled onto the track. He also testified that the car wash was attached to the building by the boom and hoses. He stated that a car wash was removed by unbolting it from the floor. He considered the inner workings of the car wash, which Alexander removed, to be a piece of equipment.
Article 18 of the lease agreement provided, in pertinent part, that “[ljessee shall, on expiration or termination of the term or any extension thereof, surrender the Premises to Lessor, including all Improvements constructed or placed by Lessor or Lessee thereon. ... All such Improvements placed thereon by Lessee shall thereupon become the property of Lessor.” Article 1.1 provided, in pertinent part, that “ ‘[i]m-provements’ shall mean all ... equipment ... on the Premises.” (emphasis ours).
As we stated in our main opinion, when contracting parties set forth their own definitions of the terms they employ, the courts are not at liberty to disregard these definitions and substitute other meanings. Fulton, 773 S.W.2d at 392; Hart, 487 S.W.2d at 417. Therefore, the definition of “Improvements” as used in article 1.1 will control the provision m article 18, which provided that “[a]ll such improvements placed thereon by Lessee shall thereupon become the property of Lessor.”
The evidence showed that Alexander installed the car-wash equipment on the premises during the lease term. According to article 18, the car-wash equipment became the Coopers’ property. The Motion for Rehearing is overruled.