Court Opinion

ID: 9898042
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-14 19:28:02.438031+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:09.712474
License: Public Domain

NOTICE: SLIP OPINION
                      (not the court’s final written decision)

The opinion that begins on the next page is a slip opinion. Slip opinions are the
written opinions that are originally filed by the court.
A slip opinion is not necessarily the court’s final written decision. Slip opinions
can be changed by subsequent court orders. For example, a court may issue an
order making substantive changes to a slip opinion or publishing for precedential
purposes a previously “unpublished” opinion. Additionally, nonsubstantive edits
(for style, grammar, citation, format, punctuation, etc.) are made before the
opinions that have precedential value are published in the official reports of court
decisions: the Washington Reports 2d and the Washington Appellate Reports. An
opinion in the official reports replaces the slip opinion as the official opinion of
the court.
The slip opinion that begins on the next page is for a published opinion, and it
has since been revised for publication in the printed official reports. The official
text of the court’s opinion is found in the advance sheets and the bound volumes
of the official reports. Also, an electronic version (intended to mirror the
language found in the official reports) of the revised opinion can be found, free of
charge, at this website: https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports.
For more information about precedential (published) opinions, nonprecedential
(unpublished) opinions, slip opinions, and the official reports, see
https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions and the information that is linked there.
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

                 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

       FITNESS INTERNATIONAL, LLC, a
       California limited liability company,            No. 84242-1-I

                            Appellant,                  DIVISION ONE

                     v.                                 PUBLISHED OPINION

       NATIONAL RETAIL PROPERTIES,
       LP, a Delaware limited liability
       company,

                            Respondent.

              MANN, J. — On March 16, 2020, Governor Jay Inslee issued the first of several

       public health orders directing all nonessential businesses, including gyms and fitness

       centers, to immediately cease operating to prevent the spread of the 2019 novel

       coronavirus (COVID-19). While the initial closure was lifted in August 2020, a second

       closure occurred between November 2020 and January 2021. Fitness International,

       LLC, operates an “LA Fitness” health and fitness club in Spanaway at a facility it leases

       from National Retail Properties, LP (National Retail). As a result of the closures, Fitness

       International sued National Retail for breach of lease and sought declaratory judgment

       based on the equitable doctrines of frustration of purpose and impossibility or
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

       No. 84242-1-I/2

       impracticability. Fitness International appeals the trial court’s order granting summary

       judgment and dismissing its claims. We affirm.

                                                           I.

               As of March 2020, Fitness International owned and operated over 700 large

       health clubs in 27 states and the District of Columbia, including 28 in Washington.

       Most of the health clubs operated under the trade name “LA Fitness.” Fitness

       International has approximately five million active members. National Retail is a real

       estate investment trust that owns commercial properties nationwide.

               In July 2015, Fitness International brought in National Retail as a development

       partner, and they entered into a series of agreements relating to the acquisition,

       development, and leasing of a vacant 3.77 acre parcel in Spanaway, Washington

       (premises). Together the contracts formed a “reverse build-to-suit” transaction. 1

       Relevant here, under the development agreement, Fitness International agreed to

       develop the premises for a health and fitness facility that Fitness International would

       then lease from National Retail. Under a separate lease agreement, Fitness

       International agreed to lease the premises from National Retail for an initial term of 19

       years with 4 options to extend the term of the lease up to 40 years.

               The lease describes the uses allowed on the premises. “Initial uses” are for the

       “operation of a health club and fitness facility” which includes, “without limitation,” a long

       list of activities such as personal training, lessons, group classes, weight and aerobic

       training, youth instruction, and saunas. The lease also allows a long, nonexclusive list

                1 The premises was initially owned by a third-party developer, Spanaway Village, L.P. Fitness

       International purchased the property from the developer, and then, under the “assignment and
       assumption of contract” agreement assigned all of its rights and obligations to the purchase to National
       Retail.

                                                        -2-
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

       No. 84242-1-I/3

       of “ancillary uses” that Fitness International can use the premises for, including uses

       such as tanning services, cosmetic treatments, child care facilities, food and beverage

       services, spa services, dry cleaning drop-off and pickup, car washing/detailing, shoe

       repair, and nutritional supplement sales. The lease leaves it to Fitness International’s

       business judgment to decide ancillary uses for the premises:

              for such other use as Tenant may determine in Tenant’s reasonable
              business judgment, provided that such use: (i) is lawful; (ii) is in
              compliance with applicable environmental, zoning and land use laws and
              requirements; (iii) does not violate matters of record or restrictions
              affecting the Premises; (iv) does not conflict with any other agreement to
              which Landlord is bound, of which agreement Tenant has received written
              notice, where such conflict would materially adversely affect Landlord; (v)
              would not have a material adverse effect on the value of the Premises;
              and (vi) would not result in or give rise to any material environmental
              deterioration or degradation of the Premises.

              The development agreement allocated some risk and excused some

       performance for “Force Majeure Events.” The force majeure clause stated:

              If either party is delayed or hindered in or prevented from the performance
              of any act required hereunder because of strikes, lockouts, inability to
              procure labor or materials, retraction by any governmental authority of the
              building permit, failure of power, restrictive laws, riots, insurrection, war,
              fire, inclement weather or other casualty or other reason of a similar or
              dissimilar nature beyond the reasonable control of the party delayed,
              financial inability excepted (each, a “Force Majeure Event”), the
              performance of such act shall be excused for the period of delay caused
              by Force Majeure Events.

       The lease does not contain a similar force majeure clause.

              On March 16, 2020, Governor Inslee issued the first of several public health

       orders directing all nonessential businesses, including gyms and fitness centers, to

       immediately cease operating to prevent the spread of the COVID-19 virus. On August

       10, 2020, the state permitted indoor clubs and gyms in Pierce County to operate under

                                                 -3-
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

       No. 84242-1-I/4

       restricted guidelines. Another COVID-19 closure period occurred from November 17,

       2020 to January 10, 2021. During these closure periods it was illegal for Fitness

       International to use the premises to operate a health club and fitness facility. In January

       2021, the public health orders abated and Fitness International resumed operations.

              National Retail requested full rental payments under the lease during the closure

       periods. Fitness International paid its rent obligations from March 2020 through

       November 2020. On November 17, 2020, Fitness International sued National Retail in

       Pierce County Superior Court. It raised three causes of action for breach of lease: (1)

       breach of the representations, warranties, and covenants, (2) failure to provide credits

       under the lease, and (3) failure to abate rent. In its fourth cause of action, Fitness

       International sought a declaratory judgment that it was not obligated to pay rent during

       the closure periods based on equitable grounds of frustration of purpose, or

       impracticability and/or impossibility. National Retail answered and counterclaimed for

       breach of lease and unjust enrichment seeking rent owed for December 2020 and

       January 2021.

              National Retail moved for summary judgment requesting (1) dismissal of Fitness

       International’s first three causes of action for breach of lease, (2) summary declaratory

       judgment against Fitness International as to its fourth cause of action, and (3) summary

       judgment for unpaid rent and prejudgment interest on National Retail’s counterclaim.

              After oral argument and supplemental briefing, the trial court granted summary

       judgment for National Retail. The court dismissed Fitness International’s three causes

       of action for breach of lease. The court also dismissed Fitness International’s fourth

       cause of action for declaratory judgment but declared that its duty to pay rent was not

                                                 -4-
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

       No. 84242-1-I/5

       excused due to the public health orders. The court granted judgment for National Retail

       for unpaid rents.

              Fitness International appeals.

                                                    II.

              This is an appeal from an order granting summary judgment. Our review is de

       novo and we engage in the same inquiry as the trial court. Young v. Key Pharms., Inc.,

       112 Wn.2d 216, 225-26, 770 P.2d 182 (1989). Summary judgment is appropriate when

       there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as

       a matter of law. CR 56(c); Young, 112 Wn.2d at 225. We construe the evidence and

       reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Strauss v.

       Premera Blue Cross, 194 Wn.2d 296, 300, 449 P.3d 640 (2019).

                                                    A.

              Fitness International argues that the trial court erred in dismissing its claims that

       National Retail breached the covenant of quiet enjoyment, and the duty to credit or

       abate rent paid during the pandemic. We disagree.

              “The interpretation of a lease is a question of law that this court reviews de novo.”

        Bellevue Square, LLC v. Whole Foods Mkt. Pac. Nw., Inc., 6 Wn. App. 2d 709, 716-17,

       432 P.3d 426 (2018). Our primary goal is to determine the parties’ intent. Berg v.

       Hudesman, 115 Wn.2d 657, 663, 801 P.2d 222 (1990). We determine the parties’

       intent by “focusing on the objective manifestation of the parties in the written contract.”

       Bellevue Square, LLC, 6 Wn. App. 2d at 716 (citing Hearst Commc’ns, Inc. v. Seattle

       Times Co., 154 Wn.2d 493, 503, 115 P.3d 262 (2005).” “Accordingly, a court considers

       only what the parties wrote, giving words in a contract their ordinary, usual, and popular

                                                  -5-
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

       No. 84242-1-I/6

       meaning unless the agreement as a whole clearly demonstrates a contrary intent.”

       4105 1st Ave. S. Invs., LLC v Green Depot WA Pac. Coast, LLC, 179 Wn. App. 777,

       784, 321 P.3d 254 (2014); Hearst, 154 Wn.2d at 503-04. “A contract ‘should be

       construed as a whole and, if reasonably possible, in a way that effectuates all of its

       provisions.’” Bellevue Square, LLC, 6 Wn. App. 2d at 717 (quoting Colo. Structures,

       Inc. v. Ins. Co. of the W., 161 Wn.2d 577, 588, 167 P.3d 1125 (2007)).

                                                   1.

              We first address Fitness International’s claim that National Retail breached the

       lease’s express covenant and warranty of quiet enjoyment. Fitness International’s claim

       fails as a matter of law for two reason: (1) the government, not National Retail, affected

       Fitness International’s possession and use of the premises; and (2) the lease excludes

       interference by government orders.

              The covenant of quiet enjoyment protects “the tenant from any wrongful act by

       the lessor which . . . interferes with the tenant’s quiet and peaceable use and enjoyment

       thereof.” Cherberg v. Peoples Nat’l Bank of Wash., 15 Wn. App. 336, 343, 549 P.2d 46

       (1976), rev’d on other grounds, 88 Wn.2d 595, 564 P.2d 1137 (1977); Hockersmith v.

       Sullivan, 71 Wash. 244, 247, 128 P. 222 (1912). The covenant is not breached when a

       third party, who is stranger to title, disturbs possession. 5 THOMPSON ON REAL PROPERTY

       § 41.03(c)(5)(3d Thomas ed. 2019); see also 15 SAMUEL W ILLISTON & RICHARD A. LORD,

       A TREATISE ON THE LAW OF CONTRACTS § 48:10 (4th ed. 2014).

              While perhaps old, the Supreme Court’s decision in Hockersmith is instructive.

       There, the City of Seattle regraded a street and in doing so “render[ed] the [leased]

       premises inaccessible and of no value.” Hockersmith, 71 Wash. at 245. The tenants

                                                 -6-
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

       No. 84242-1-I/7

       sued the landlord for breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment. Hockersmith, 71

       Wash. at 245. The trial court dismissed the claim and the Supreme Court affirmed,

       holding that the covenant “does not insure against third parties who are wrongdoers.”

       Hockersmith, 71 Wash. at 247. Because the landlord had nothing to do with the street

       work, the court held that if the City’s regrading was wrongful, the tenant’s remedy was

       against the City, not the landlord. Hockersmith, 71 Wn. at 247.

              The same is true here. National Retail was not responsible for the public health

       orders and was powerless to prevent the government’s closure of nonessential

       businesses like fitness clubs. Fitness International’s claim is more appropriate against

       the government rather than its landlord.

              Furthermore, the lease explicitly excludes interferences caused by government

       orders. Section 27.2 of the lease specifically states that the covenant and warranty of

       quiet enjoyment is expressly subject to other provisions of the lease:

              Landlord covenants and warrants that Tenant shall have and enjoy full,
              quiet, and peaceful possession of the Premises, its appurtenances and all
              rights and privileges incidental thereto during the term, subject to the
              provisions of this Lease.

              One of the other provisions, section 9.2, requires Fitness International to comply

       with all use regulations and orders in effect during the tenancy:

              Tenant, at Tenant’s sole expense, promptly shall comply with all
              applicable statutes, ordinances, rules, regulations, orders, covenants and
              restrictions of record, and requirements in effect during the term or any
              part of the term hereof, regulating the use by Tenant of the Premises.

              Fitness International asks this court to ignore this interpretation because section

       9.2 does not reference the covenant of quiet enjoyment. But, we “view the contract as a

       whole, interpreting particular language in the context of other contract provisions.”

                                                  -7-
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

       No. 84242-1-I/8

       Viking Bank v. Firgrove Commons 3, LLC, 183 Wn. App. 706, 713, 334 P.3d 116

       (2014). Read together, section 27.2’s “subject to the provisions of this Lease” language

       effectually incorporates section 9.2, limiting the scope of the covenant to exclude the

       effects of government regulations. Here, the government ordered the COVID-19

       shutdown that infringed on Fitness International’s enjoyment of its leased property.

       Fitness International agreed to abide by all government orders in section 9.2. Section

       27.2 incorporates section 9.2. An agreed upon covenant cannot now constitute a

       breach of quiet enjoyment.

              Fitness International argues that this interpretation contradicts Washington law

       because the court is required to “harmonize clauses” in the lease; interpreting section

       9.2 as an exemption to National Retail’s covenant conflicts with the broad, unqualified

       and sweeping covenant of section 27.2. But Fitness International reads out “subject to

       the provisions of this Lease.” Interpreting section 9.2 as an express covenant to abide

       by orders and agree it is not a breach of quiet enjoyment is a more harmonious

       interpretation than stating that Fitness International’s compliance with section 9.2

       creates a breach by National Retail.

              Alternatively, Fitness International argues that the inclusion of both the terms

       covenant and warranty in section 27.2 refer to different promises. We disagree.

              First, any distinction is immaterial because both terms are subject to other

       provisions of the lease:

              Landlord covenants and warrants that Tenant shall have and enjoy full,
              quiet, and peaceful possession of the Premises, its appurtenances and all
              rights and privileges incidental thereto during the term, subject to the
              provisions of this Lease.

                                                 -8-
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

       No. 84242-1-I/9

       (Emphasis added). Thus, even if the terms meant different things, they are both still

       subject to other provisions of the lease, including section 9.2.

              Further, the context of conveyances, “[the] covenant of warranty and covenant of

       quiet enjoyment are identical.” Rowe v. Klein, 2 Wn. App. 2d 326, 335, 409 P.3d 1152

       (2018) (citing W. Coast Mfg. & Inv. Co. v. W. Coast Imp. Co., 25 Wash. 627, 643, 66 P.

       97 (1901)). The assurance has taken the form of a covenant and warranty based on

       the nature of the persons against whom it applies:

              The implied covenant of quiet enjoyment concerns the tenant’s
              possession of the leased premises. It is a covenant and warranty that the
              landlord, and individuals claiming under or through the landlord, will not
              wrongfully disturb the possession of the tenant, and that the tenant’s
              possession will not be disturbed by individuals with paramount title to the
              property.

       5 THOMPSON, supra, § 41.03(c)(1). The “covenant” is a promise that the lessor will not

       disturb the tenant’s possession while the “warranty” is a promise that no one with

       paramount title will disturb possession:

              Pursuant to the implied covenant of quiet enjoyment, the landlord warrants
              that the tenant will not be disturbed in the possession by another other
              person with superior legal right to possession and protects the tenant from
              actual or constructive eviction by someone with superior title. Moreover,
              the landlord covenants not to evict the tenant himself, actually or
              constructively.

       49 AM. JUR. 2D Landlord and Tenant § 469 (2018) (footnotes omitted). In other words,

       the warranty protects the tenant from eviction by someone else with a superior title to

       the property while the covenant protects the tenant from eviction by the lessor. Neither

       protect against actions by third-party strangers, such as government regulation.

              National Retail did not breach the covenant of quiet enjoyment because it was

       not responsible for and powerless to stop the intervening event.

                                                  -9-
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

       No. 84242-1-I/10

                                                    2.

              We next address Fitness International’s claim that National Retail breached

       contractual duties to credit or abate rent. “A breach of contract is actionable only if the

       contract imposes a duty.” NW. Indep. Forest Mfrs. V. Dep’t of Lab. & Indus., 78 Wn.

       App. 707, 712, 899 P.2d 6 (1995). The lease does not impose a duty for National Retail

       to credit or abate rent.

              To the contrary, the only discussion of a credit or abatement is in section 15 of

       the lease. Section 15 states: “Tenant is not entitled to any rent abatement during or

       resulting from any disturbance on or partial or total destruction of the Premises.”

       Moreover, section 5.2 requires Fitness International to pay rent “without prior notice,

       invoice, demand, deduction, or offset whatsoever.” Section 29.11 requires payment

       even in breach:

              This Lease shall be construed as though the covenants herein between
              Landlord and Tenant are independent and not dependent and Tenant . . .
              agrees that if Landlord fails to perform its obligations set forth herein,
              Tenant shall not be entitled to make any repairs or perform any acts
              hereunder at Landlord’s expense or to any offset of the rent or other
              amounts owing hereunder against Landlord.

              Looking at the terms of the lease, there is no requirement for National Retail to

       abate or credit rent without a separate action and finding that National Retail breached

       the lease agreement. The lease requires Fitness International to pay rent and does not

       include a provision that entitles Fitness International to rent abatement or credit.

                                                    III.

              Fitness International argues in the alternative that the trial court erred in granting

       summary judgment because it was entitled to declaratory judgment that it did not have

                                                  -10-
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

       No. 84242-1-I/11

       to pay rent during the closure periods based on equitable grounds of frustration of

       purpose, or impracticability and/or or impossibility. We disagree.

               At the outset, Fitness International argues that our review of the trial court’s

       dismissing its claim for declaratory judgment is subject to an abuse of discretion

       standard of review. In contrast, National Retail argues our review is de novo. Our

       Supreme Court recently resolved this conflict in Borton & Sons, Inc. v. Burbank Props,

       LLC, 196 Wn.2d 199, 205-07, 471 P.3d 871 (2020). The threshold question of “whether

       equitable relief is appropriate is a question of law that we review de novo.” Borton &

       Sons, 196 Wn.2d at 207. If equitable relief is available, whether the trial court properly

       fashioned the remedy is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Borton & Sons, 196 Wn.2d at

       206. Because the trial court concluded that equitable relief was unavailable, our review

       here is de novo. 2

                                                          A.

               The doctrine of “discharge by supervening frustration” is recited in Restatement

       (Second) of Contracts § 265 (Am. L. Inst. 1981):

               Where, after a contract is made, a party’s principal purpose is substantially
               frustrated without his fault by the occurrence of an event the non-
               occurrence of which was a basic assumption on which the contract was
               made, his remaining duties to render performance are discharged, unless
               the language or the circumstances indicate the contrary.”

               2 National Retail argues that equitable remedies are unavailable as a matter of law because

       Fitness International has an adequate remedy at law—its challenge that National Retail breached the
       lease. National Retail cites Kucera v. State Dep’t of Transp., 140 Wn.2d 200, 210, 995 P.2d 63 (2000) for
       the three-part test to determine whether there are adequate remedies at law: “(1) the injury complained of
       by its nature cannot be compensated by money damages, (2) the damages cannot be ascertained with
       any degree of certainty, and (3) the remedy at law would not be efficient because the injury is of a
       continuing nature.” Fitness International responds that money damages were insufficient because it
       sought a declaration that rent was not owed during the closure periods (as well as potentially future
       closure periods). We agree with Fitness International.

                                                        -11-
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

       No. 84242-1-I/12

       Washington State Hop Producers, Inc., Liquidation Tr. V. Goschie Farms, Inc., 112

       Wn.2d 694, 700, 773 P.2d 70 (1989). Under the Restatement, “the purpose that is

       frustrated must have been a principal purpose of that party in making the contract . . .

       without [which] the transaction would make little sense.” RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF

       CONTRACTS § 265, cmt. a. See also Wash. State Hop Producers, 112 Wn.2d at 700.

       Performance is not excused unless the purpose is “substantially frustrated.” Felt v.

       McCarthy, 130 Wn.2d 203, 207, 922 P.2d 90 (1996). “It is not enough that the

       transaction has become less profitable for the affected party or even that [it] will sustain

       a loss.” Felt, 130 Wn.2d at 208.

              While we agree that Fitness International could not fully operate a traditional

       fitness facility during the limited months of the public health orders, the purpose of the

       lease was not substantially frustrated. Section 9.1 of the lease describes the initial and

       ancillary authorized uses of the premises. Initial uses include a lengthy list of traditional

       health and fitness facility uses:

              Tenant may use the Premises (“Initial Use”) for the operation of a health
              club and fitness facility which may include, without limitation, weight and
              aerobic training, group exercise classes, exercise dancing such as
              Zumba, yoga, Pilates, racquetball/squash, personal training, aerobics,
              health and fitness related programs, free weights, spinning/cycling, circuit
              training, boxing, basketball, swimming pool, instruction in sports or other
              physical activities (e.g., swim lessons, racquetball/squash/tennis lessons,
              martial arts, dance, and youth sports instruction) and sauna and whirlpool
              facilities.

       Section 9.1 also lists more than a dozen possible ancillary uses that Fitness

       International can conduct, including selling apparel, wellbeing services, vitamins, and

       food and beverages. Use of the premises for ancillary purposes is left broadly to

       Fitness International’s business judgment:

                                                  -12-
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

       No. 84242-1-I/13

             Tenant may determine in Tenant’s reasonable business judgment,
             provided that such use: (i) is lawful; (ii) is in compliance with applicable
             environmental, zoning, and land use laws ad requirements; (iii) does not
             violate matters of record or restrictions affecting the Premises; (iv) does
             not conflict with any other agreement to which Landlord is bound, of which
             agreement Tenant has received written notice, where such conflict would
             materially adversely affect Landlord; (v) would not have a material adverse
             effect on the value of the Premises; and (vi) would not result in or give rise
             to any material environmental deterioration or degradation of the
             Premises.

             In Felt, a contract case, the purchaser stopped making payments on a real

       property purchase because zoning changes reduced the property’s value by more than

       80 percent. 130 Wn.2d at 205, 207. The Supreme Court held that a “decline in market

       value is not sufficient in and of itself” to excuse performance. Felt, 130 Wn.2d at 210;

       see also RESTATEMENT (SECOND) CONTRACTS §265 cmt. a (operating at a substantial

       loss does not constitute a substantial frustration excusing performance).

             In leasing, the frustration defense is unavailable if a lease allows the tenant to put

       the premises to another use. Hayton v. Seattle Brewing & Malting Co., 66 Wn. 248,

       248-49, 119 P. 739 (1911). In Hayton, the tenants entered into a lease stating they

       “may . . . conduct a retail saloon business in the building.” Hayton, 66 Wash. at 249

       (emphasis added). When prohibition laws went into effect, the tenant vacated, stopped

       paying rent, and argued that their performance was excused because the prohibition

       laws frustrated the purpose of their lease. Hayton, 66 Wash. at 249. The Supreme

       Court disagreed, holding that the saloon use “is only permissive in that respect, and

       clearly does not prevent [tenant] from using the premises for any lawful purpose.”

       Hayton, 66 Wash. at 249. Simply, while their primary purpose was to conduct a saloon

                                                -13-
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

       No. 84242-1-I/14

       business, because the negotiated lease agreement allowed for additional uses, the

       purpose of the lease was not frustrated.

             As in Hayton, Fitness International’s lease uses the same permissive term, the

       “Tenant may use the Premises.” Moreover, the lease specifically enumerates more

       than a dozen other ancillary uses subject only to Fitness International’s business

       judgment. Fitness International could for example, use the premise to create online

       classes, sell take-away food, beverages, and goods.

             Fitness International relies on Weyerhaeuser v. Stoneway Concrete, Inc., 96

       Wn.2d 558, 637 P.2d 647 (1981), and Brunswick-Balke-Collender Co. v. Seattle

       Brewing & Malting Co., 98 Wash. 12, 14-15, 167 P. 58 (1917). In Weyerhaeuser, a

       commercial mineral lease was frustrated when an unanticipated and unprecedented

       shift in environmental laws prevented the tenant from obtaining regulatory approvals. In

       applying the Restatement, the Supreme Court explained:

             There can be no doubt of the desired object or purpose of [the lease].
                    ....
             [The] purpose of obtaining sand, gravel and other aggregates by strip
             mining the leased premises was frustrated by its inability to obtain the
             necessary permits is unchallenged. Stoneway was without fault in the
             occurrence of the supervening event causing the frustration of its purpose.

       Weyerhaeuser, 96 Wn.2d at 561-62. After finding equitable relief appropriate, the court

       limited the scope of the equitable remedy. The court found that frustration did not

       excuse the tenant’s rent obligations for the period between 1972 and 1975 when the

       tenant knew its project was a lost cause but remained in possession of the premises.

       Weyerhaeuser, 96 Wn.2d at 561-62.

                                                  -14-
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

       No. 84242-1-I/15

              Weyerhaeuser, is distinguishable. First, Fitness International remained in

       possession of the premises during the closure periods. In Weyerhaeuser, the court

       specifically excluded the periods the tenant remained in possession of the premises

       from the frustration doctrine. Weyerhaeuser, 96 Wn.2d at 561-62. There the court

       excluded a three-year period; we are considering a period of seven months. Second, a

       mineral land lease is a specific purpose—the mining of resources. There was no other

       available use for the land that met the limited purpose and project scope. Alternatively,

       here, Fitness International could alter its business practices to occupy the premises for

       other purposes.

              In Brunswick, another Prohibition era case, the lease was materially narrower

       than the lease in Hayton. The Brunswick lease stated that “[t]he premises are hereby

       leased to the lessee for the purpose of conducting a saloon and selling liquors at retail

       therein.” Brunswick, 98 Wn. at 14-15. Unlike the Hayton lease, the Brunswick lease left

       out the term “may.” The Supreme Court concluded that the nonpermissive lease

       language made it apparent that the parties had “one and one purpose only in mind, that

       the premises were let for saloon purposes and were to be occupied as a saloon.”

       Brunswick, 98 Wn. at 14-15. Because of Prohibition, the purpose was completely

       frustrated.

              In contrast, the lease in this case is much more expansive and allows Fitness

       International flexibility in its use of the premises. Fitness International’s lease was not

       substantially frustrated.

                                                  -15-
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

       No. 84242-1-I/16

                                                    B.

              “The doctrine of impossibility and impracticability discharges a party from

       contractual obligations when a basic assumption of the contract is destroyed and such

       destruction makes performance impossible or impractical, provided the party seeking

       relief does not bear the risk of the unexpected occurrence.” Tacoma Northpark, LLC v.

       NW, LLC, 123 Wn. App. 73, 81, 96 P.3d 454 (2004). These defenses are “not the legal

       equivalent of subjective inability to perform.” Liner v. Armstrong Homes of Bremerton,

       Inc., 19 Wn. App. 921, 926, 579 P.2d 367 (1978).

              Fitness International relies on Smugglers Cove, LLC v. Aspen Power

       Catamarans, LLC, 2020 WL 758107, at *3 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 14, 2020) (court order).

       There, the doctrine of impossibility discharged the contractual obligation to deliver a

       boat because a drunk driver struck and destroyed the boat in delivery. Smugglers

       Cove, 2020 WL 758107, at *3. The boat was destroyed, and so performance became

       impossible. Smugglers Cove, 2020 WL 758107, at *3.

              In contrast, the lease provides Fitness International with exclusive possession

       and use of the premises in exchange for monthly rent and other charges. Fitness

       International still occupied the premises, could conduct ancillary uses including, but not

       limited to, conducting online classes, sell take-away food, or otherwise alter its

       business, and continue operations. The premises was not destroyed nor was Fitness

       International’s exclusive possession and use disturbed. The temporary public health

       closure orders limited Fitness International’s use of the premises, but that is not

       sufficient to discharge Fitness International of performance based on impossibility. “The

                                                 -16-
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

       No. 84242-1-I/17

       mere fact that a contract’s performance becomes more difficult or expensive than

       originally anticipated, does not justify setting it aside.” Liner, 19 Wn. App. at 926.

                                                    IV.

              National Retail argues that it is entitled to an award of reasonable attorney fees

       and costs on appeal. We agree.

              “A contractual provision supporting award of attorney fees at trial supports an

       award of attorney fees on appeal.” Draper Mach. Works, Inc. v. Hagberg, 34 Wn. App.

       483, 490, 663 P.2d 141 (1983). The lease contains such a provision:

              if any action for breach of or to enforce the provisions of this Lease is
              commenced, the court in such action shall award to the party in whose
              favor a judgment is entered, a reasonable sum as attorneys’ fees and
              costs. Such attorneys’ fees and costs shall be paid by the losing party in
              such action.

              The trial court awarded National Retail reasonable attorney fees and costs at

       trial. Subject to compliance with RAP 18.1, we award National Retail its reasonable

       attorney fees incurred in this appeal.

              Affirmed.

       WE CONCUR:

                                                  -17-