Court Opinion

ID: 9621095
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 05:51:43.277536+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:04:02.378364
License: Public Domain

Beasley, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. I would concur with the majority opinion with respect to the attorney fees issue except that in my view it would not be reached because I depart from both the majority and dissent*832ing opinions with respect to the oral lease issue.1
“Where’s the lease?”
The original lease, and the written renewal document submitted to Jenkins and signed by him, provided at the close immediately above his signature:
“Condition Precedent. Notwithstanding anything contained herein to the contrary, this Lease shall not be effective or legally binding upon the parties hereto until it has been reviewed and approved in writing by Landlord’s Regional Vice-President or designee and its Legal Counsel.”
The law provides: “A condition precedent must be performed before the contract becomes absolute and obligatory upon the other party.” OCGA § 13-3-4.
Thus, to be effective, the lease had to be signed by the designated persons and, of necessity, it had to be in writing, for one cannot sign a non-existent document. It is totally contradictory to say that the parties could and did orally agree to be bound by an agreement which, to be effective, had to be not only in writing but also approved in writing by two persons not part of the negotiations.
The original lease was signed by both parties (Lott was not the signer as landlord’s representative although he had negotiated it), and the vice president and legal counsel signed as having approved.
Jenkins testified that the renewal lease was to be the same as the original lease, but for the rental rate and time period. It was. He testified without deviation that the document which Lott sent was, except for rate and period, “exactly like the one I signed before,” “identical,” and because it was in conformity with what he and Lott had negotiated, he signed it. He expressly admitted the Condition Precedent was part of the renewal lease.
However, although Jenkins intended to deliver the document back to the landlord’s negotiating representative, he did not do so. Thus its execution was never completed with the signature of landlord’s representative (not Lott) and written approval of the vice president and legal counsel. It is undisputed that they never even knew Jenkins had signed it. Instead, Jenkins as prospective lessee kept control of the document and could have ignored or discarded it with no breach of it resulting. Everyone, including the jury, seems to agree that there was no binding written lease.
There was no evidence that the parties intended an oral lease, *833much less one without the Condition Precedent. Jenkins admitted that he intended it to be in writing and “expected” it. He assumed it would be a written lease because that was the prior procedure followed and the other tenants had written leases. He acted on it when it was received, entering his signature and having his assistant sign as witness. Negotiations involved only the rental rate and time period. The other terms, which were many, were never mentioned because the parties intended that they would be the same as in, the original written lease.
If the parties intended an oral lease, what were all of its terms, and what then was the purpose of the written document which both sides referred to as “the lease”?
Because the Condition Precedent goes to the very issue of whether the lease could be oral or written (there was in addition to the Condition Precedent an incorporation provision limiting the lease to its four corners2) and requires that it be written, which Jenkins agreed to, there could not possibly be an oral lease.
The Condition Precedent also goes to the very issue of whether the lease could be entered into by negotiator Lott. It requires otherwise, and Jenkins agreed to this provision, as he had before. So there could be no lease without signed approval.
The standard used to review the grant or denial of a directed verdict is the “any evidence” test. Sheffield v. Kirkley, 184 Ga. App. 877, 878 (1) (363 SE2d 68) (1987). Where there is no evidence to support the verdict, the judgment must be set aside. Wright Contracting Co. v. Davis, 93 Ga. App. 810, 816 (1) (92 SE2d 812) (1956); Carr v. Jacuzzi Bros., 133 Ga. App. 70, 74 (7) (210 SE2d 16) (1974).
The fact that Jenkins sought declaratory judgment rather than specific performance is irrelevant. The determinative issue, which would be crucial in both instances, is whether there was a lease. Also, what Jenkins was told prior to entering into the original lease is irrelevant, because it as well as the renewal document contained an incorporation provision.
Likewise, the fact that the hospital did not voice objection to the interrogatories or instructions just prior to their submission to the jury does not preclude its insisting there was no lease. It steadfastly maintained, in motions for directed verdict, for JNOV, and for new trial, that there was no evidence of a binding lease, and it is these rulings which are enumerated as error. I find no authority for the pro*834position that failure to object to jury interrogatories and instructions deprives a losing party of the right to review of these rulings.
Decided September 15, 1988
Rehearing denied October 18, 1988
Kevin E. Grady, Reta G. Jordan, Michael E. Sumner, for appellant.
Louis K. Polonsky, for appellee.
In sum, all that Jenkins had was a tenancy as described in the provision for “End of Term” pursuant to the original lease. The oral negotiations did not constitute an oral contract but were simply oral negotiations which did not develop into an executed contract.
The effect of the majority decision is to allow the factfinder to create an oral lease out of every year-or-less written lease document which is not signed by both parties yet contains terms which are the same, including the provision that to be effective, the lease must be approved in writing by lessor’s representatives.
I am authorized to state that Judge Carley joins in this dissent.

 Contrary to the statement in the majority opinion, Jenkins did not seek to enforce an oral agreement when he filed suit. In his original complaint, and even as amended, he bottomed his tenancy on the written document as “the lease” and alleged that he “intends to honor all terms and conditions of said lease.” It was only in the pretrial order that he contended there was an oral agreement.

 “Incorporation of Prior Agreement; Amendments. This Lease contains all of the agreements of the parties hereto with respect to any matter covered or mentioned in this Lease, and no prior agreement or understanding pertaining to any such matter shall be effective for any purpose. No provision of this Lease may be amended or added to except by an agreement in writing signed by the parties hereto or their respective successors in interest.”