Caseflicks

Nebraska Supreme Court • 1988

Newman v. Hinky Dinky Omaha-Lincoln, Inc.

427 N.W.2d 50 | 229 Neb. 382 | 1988 Neb. LEXIS 279

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, this case establishes that a commercial landlord's bare contractual right to consent to an assignment or sublease carries an implied duty to act in good faith and with commercial reasonableness.

Background

Raquel H. Newman, trustee and owner of commercial property in Lincoln, leased the premises to American Community Stores Corporation (ACS) in 1977. The lease required ACS to obtain Newman's written consent before assigning the lease or subletting any part of the premises. It did not expressly say that Newman could withhold consent in her sole or absolute discretion.

ACS operated Hinky Dinky supermarkets but ceased those operations in February 1985. Before closing, ACS sought Newman's consent to assign the lease to Nash Finch Company, which would then sublease the property to Hinky Dinky Omaha-Lincoln, Inc. Newman did not consent, although the parties discussed the arrangement. ACS nevertheless assigned the lease to Nash Finch, and Nash Finch sublet to Hinky Dinky.

Newman notified ACS, Nash Finch, and Hinky Dinky that the unauthorized assignment and sublease constituted a lease default. She accepted rent payments from Nash Finch while the parties tried to resolve their dispute, but later served notices to vacate and quit and brought this forcible entry and detainer action for restitution of the premises.

The district court granted Newman partial summary judgment, concluding that a landlord could withhold consent for any reason under this lease. It then tried the separate question whether Newman's acceptance of rent waived her right to enforce the breach. Finding no waiver, the court awarded Newman possession. Hinky Dinky appealed.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether a commercial landlord may arbitrarily withhold consent to an assignment or sublease when the lease requires the landlord's prior written consent but does not expressly grant an absolute right to refuse consent.

Holding

No. In the absence of an expressly negotiated provision granting the landlord an absolute right to refuse, the landlord may withhold consent only for a good-faith, commercially reasonable objection.

Reasoning

The lease was a contract, and its consent clause gave Newman discretion that directly affected ACS's contractual right to transfer its leasehold interest. The court reasoned that discretionary contractual power ordinarily carries an implied duty of good faith and fair dealing. A bare requirement of prior consent therefore did not give Newman unlimited authority to reject a proposed assignee or subtenant for arbitrary reasons.

The court adopted the rule reflected in Restatement (Second) of Property § 15.2(2) and decisions such as Kendall v. Ernest Pestana, Inc. That rule recognizes the validity of consent provisions but requires reasonable consent decisions unless the parties freely negotiated language specifically giving the landlord an absolute right to withhold approval.

Commercial reasonableness may depend on such considerations as the proposed assignee's or sublessee's financial responsibility, suitability for the property, proposed use, need for alterations, and the nature of the occupancy. Where rent depends in part on gross receipts, the proposed occupant's past and anticipated revenues may also matter. These factors are illustrative rather than exhaustive, and none has a predetermined weight.

Nebraska law already recognized comparable good-faith and reasonableness principles in commercial leasing. The court had held that a landlord may not unreasonably reject a replacement tenant offered to mitigate damages, and that a party with approval authority over construction plans must exercise it in good faith. Those principles supported implying a reasonableness limit here.

Because whether Newman acted in good faith and reasonably was a material factual question, the district court could not grant summary judgment on the premise that she possessed an absolute right to withhold consent. The court expressly left unresolved whether a lease provision expressly authorizing absolute refusal would be enforceable or would violate Nebraska's policy against unreasonable restraints on alienation.

Issue #2

Whether Newman's acceptance of rent after learning of the unauthorized assignment and sublease waived her right to declare a lease default.

Holding

The court did not decide the waiver question; adjudicating it was premature until the reasonableness of Newman's refusal of consent was determined.

Reasoning

The alleged default depended on the validity of Newman's refusal to consent. If her refusal was not made in good faith and on reasonable grounds, the assignment and sublease could not be treated as an actionable breach merely because they occurred without her approval.

Accordingly, the trial court's finding that acceptance of rent did not constitute waiver could not support a restitution judgment at that stage. The Nebraska Supreme Court reversed both rulings and remanded for further proceedings, beginning with the factual determination whether Newman reasonably withheld consent.