Court Opinion

ID: 9846951
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 03:51:03.525599+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:57.739028
License: Public Domain

Opinion of
Mr. Justice Parker,
dissenting.
I regret that I cannot concur with the views of my colleagues. In my opinion, the judgment should be affirmed.
Although dissents often tend toward uncertainty in a field of the law rather than toward clarification, I feel obligated in this instance to present my reasons.
The statement of the case heretofore made would seem to be sufficient if there be added thereto the portions of the original agreement which dealt with termination and prohibition against assignment. They are as follows:
*294Termination: “The terms of this lease shall begin on the first day of March 1950 and continue during and until the First day of March 1955, unless sooner terminated by violation of any of its conditions, or by mutual agreement. Whenever terminated, the party of the second part agrees to peacefully surrender up the premises to the party of the first part * * *.
* * * * *
“It is hereby agreed that should the party of the second part fail or refuse to carry out and perform any of the conditions of this lease, then and in that event, the party of the first part may declare this lease terminated by giving ten days’ notice * * *.”
Prohibition Against Assignment: “It is further agreed by the said party of the second part, that neither he nor his legal representative will sublet said premises, or any part thereof, or assign this lease, without the written consent of the party of the first part.”
Defendant in her answer set up three reasons why she contended that the “Farm Lease and Option to Purchase” agreement was not effective at the time of the purported exercise of the option by plaintiffs since she had given notice of termination of the lease agreement after:
(1) The rental had not been paid in the time and manner provided;
(2) Plaintiffs had failed to maintain, repair, and keep up the improvements and fences on the leased premises; and
(3) Plaintiffs had assigned and transferred the agreement to one Nielson.
As to the first, the trial court found that plaintiffs had paid their required rental and were not in default *295—although there seems to have been considerable evidence to the contrary which would have justified an opposite finding.
As to the second, the court made no finding regarding the allegation that plaintiffs had failed to maintain and repair the leased premises. It is noteworthy that there was substantial evidence tending to prove lack of proper maintenance of the premises. Such evidence met with objection which the court overruled —probably rightly so because it is generally held that notice of termination need not set out the reasons therefor. See 52 C.J.S. Landlord and Tenant § 769. Cf. Russell v. Allard, 18 N.H. 222; Granger v. Brown, 11 Cush. (Mass.) 191; Zucco v. Farullo, 37 Cal.App. 562, 174 P. 929.
As to the third, the court found that plaintiffs had assigned the agreement to Nielson and that this was contrary to the provisions in the original agreement. However, as the majority opinion points out, the mere taking of initial steps to effect the assignment will not itself work a forfeiture. Thus, strictly speaking, the plaintiffs had not completed their assignment to Niel-son before the notice of forfeiture was given, or even before they elected to purchase under the option. Therefore, there is some merit to the view that this finding could not be the sole basis of the judgment. Accordingly, it seems that technically speaking there is ground for reversal of the trial court because any violation of the original agreement by plaintiffs was either rejected by the trial court or eliminated by the majority opinion. Nevertheless, there are other considerations which merit our attention.
It has often been said that if a judgment of a trial court appears to be right for any reason it is the duty of the reviewing court to affirm it even though it be *296based upon a ground insufficient to warrant it if another ground exists which is sufficient. See 3 Am. Jur. Appeal and Error § 1163. See also 5 C.J.S. Appeal and Error § 1849. In Peterson v. Johnson, 46 Wyo. 473, 28 P.2d 487, 489, 91 A.L.R. 723, we said, “If the judgment given can be sustained on any theory, it may be affirmed.” Bearing this in mind we advert to the proof which was adduced as above outlined. It would seem sufficient on which to base the judgment heretofore entered.
The general evidence presented in the trial court should probably be reviewed in order that there be a full picture of the status of the contracting parties since it has often been held that a court should take into consideration the conduct of the parties and all the circumstances in a case of this nature. See Otis Oil & Gas Corporation v. Maier, 74 Wyo. 137, 284 P.2d 653. See also Hake v. Groff, 232 Mich. 233, 205 N.W. 145; Burrows Motor Co. v. Davis, D.C.Mun.App. 76 A.2d 163; Prichard v. Kimball, 190 Cal. 757, 214 P. 863; and Mott v. Cline, 200 Cal. 434, 253 P. 718. In' this case the record showed a mother leased approximately a section of land and a number of cattle to her son and gave him an option to purchase the land at something less than ten dollars per acre, to be paid for over an eleven-year period with no additional charge for interest. The rental was quite nominal. In addition to the testimony regarding the difficulties between the parties as to the payments of rental there was substantial evidence that the son failed to maintain the place properly, overgrazed it, and permitted the person to whom he expected to assign his rights to place large herds of cattle thereon. The mother had apparently attempted on different occasions to secure some relief from the inequities of her situation, with little success, and finally, after a transfer of the land to a third person was imminent, she attempted to ter-*297mínate the agreement. If a lease so provides, a landlord may terminate same upon notice and without further act or repossession. See generally 51 C.J.S. Landlord and Tenant § 114; 32 Am.Jur. Landlord and Tenant § 870; and 26 Am.St.Rep. 912. Cf. Larsen v. Sjogren, 67 Wyo. 447, 226 P.2d 177. See also Annotation, 118 A.L.R. 283.
In the light of all of the evidence and the other matters disclosed in the record, it would appear that there are several grounds upon which the judgment of the trial court might be sustained. This thought becomes more compelling when it is realized that a principle of equity must be invoked if the court is to permit the son to buy this property so that he can sell it at a profit. It has been said:
“ * * * equitable relief by way of specific performance should not be granted to plaintiff unless his course of conduct relative to the transaction has been one that warrants the approval of a court of equity. * * * Specific performance is a remedy of grace and not a matter of rights, * * * and the test of whether or not it should be granted depends upon the peculiar circumstances of each case * * *. The granting of this equitable remedy lies within the discretion of the court. * * *” MacGlashan v. Harper, 299 Mich. 662, 1 N.W.2d 30, 32.
See also 49 Am.Jur. Specific Performance § 7; Annotation, 65 A.L.R. 7, 63; and Otis Oil & Gas Corporation v. Maier, supra.
It would seem that the employment of equitable principles in the disposition of litigation should be reserved for instances which clearly merit their use.
Perhaps a discussion of the problem should not be concluded without reference to a statement made in the principal opinion that:
*298“All that was necessary to transform that option from an unambiguous and certain offer to sell within the time limited was the acceptance of the offer by plaintiffs’ election within that time to exercise the option to purchase, whereupon it immediately became a firm contract of purchase and sale.”
This oversimplifies the problem. It is generally conceded that:
“Whether the option to purchase contained in a lease is an independent agreement, or in connection with the lease forms one entire agreement, depends on the intention of the parties, and this is to be resolved by the construction of the instrument read in the light of its circumstances. * * *” 51 C.J.S. Landlord and Tenant § 81, p. 638.
And see Prichard v. Kimball, supra. From a full and comprehensive examination of the instrument in issue here, it would appear to be impossible to separate the lease and the option by any reasonable and logical method. The reason for the existence of an option in a lease is also important to consider, and this has been well expressed by the court in the case of Gilbert v. Van Kleeek, 284 App.Div. 611, 132 N.Y.S.2d 580, 585, wherein it was said:
“ * * * the question of whether an option to purchase contained in a lease is assignable apart from the lease is basically a question of the intention of the parties. It is possible to draft the provision so as to give the lessee an option to purchase as an independent contractual right, separable from the lease, but such a provision would be an unusual one. The principal purpose of a first option to purchase is to protect the lessee’s interest in continued possession of the premises by assuring him of an opportunity to purchase the premises before they are sold to anyone else. A subsidiary purpose is to encourage the lessee to make improvements upon the premises which he might not otherwise make, These purposes would be defeated if *299the lessee, while keeping the leasehold estate, were to assign the option to a stranger. It is therefore to be inferred, in the absence of an expression of an, intention of the parties to the contrary, that the option was intended to be inseparable from the leasehold estate. 1 American Law of Property, § 3.82, p. 361.”
The basic instrument here in issue makes no provision for a deed to plaintiffs and a mortgage back to defendant, for a deed to be placed in escrow, or for any other method of effectuating the option. If, as the court says, it be assumed that the moment the plaintiffs accept the option it is immediately transformed into a contract of purchase and sale then we are faced with two alternatives: Either the conditions and requirements set out in the original instrument must continue to apply throughout the eleven years until the last payment has been made or the court must constitute out of whole cloth the conditions which are to control for the remaining part of the sixteen-year period (five-year lease and eleven years for payment under the option) .
Assume for the purpose of illustration that we are to say that the “Farm Lease and Option to Purchase” immediately becomes a contract of purchase and sale, Is it governed by all of the provision in the original lease including that against assignment, or will the trial court set up the terms and conditions which are to control in the event of some default?
This is a problem not simple of solution; but if the case is to be reversed, then the directions to the trial court must be explicit. I respectfully suggest that they must conform substantially to the terms of the original instrument which would certainly prohibit the assignment of the property or any interest therein to anyone until the date of the last payment provided in the original agreement, i.e., March 2, 1966.
*300(No. 2806;
June 3rd, 1958;
325 Pac. (2d) 880)