City of Kenai v. Ferguson
1987 Alas. LEXIS 231, 732 P.2d 184 (1987)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A provision in a long-term lease that agrees to renegotiate future rental terms without specifying a method or standard for determination is enforceable, and courts will imply a reasonable fair market rent based on the property's actual contemplated use, especially where there has been substantial reliance on the lease term. A trial court has broad discretion to permit the withdrawal of admissions under Civil Rule 36(b) if it subserves the merits of the action and does not cause prejudice to the party who obtained the admissions.
Facts:
- In May 1970, Edward A. Ferguson (Ferguson) successfully bid for and entered into a fifty-five-year lease agreement with the City of Kenai (City) for certain airport lands.
- The lease agreement included Paragraph 10, a rent escalation clause stating that rents "shall be subject to re-negotiation for increase or decrease at intervals of EVERY FIVE YEARS."
- Ferguson became the sole lessee of Lot 1 and, with the City's knowledge and consent, constructed a service station on the property, making substantial investments.
- In May 1980, the City sent Ferguson a letter proposing an amendment to the lease that would significantly increase his rent, determined by a City ordinance formula, and requested him to sign it.
- Over the next two years, the City and Ferguson communicated but failed to reach an agreement on the new rental rate, as Ferguson was willing to negotiate but not to accept a rate dictated solely by the City's appraisal and formula.
- The City informed Ferguson that the renegotiation was overdue and threatened to terminate the lease and collect sums due, including retroactive payments, if he did not agree to its proposed rent.
Procedural Posture:
- The City of Kenai filed suit against Edward A. Ferguson in superior court, seeking forfeiture and termination of the lease, possession of the property, rents due, costs, and attorney's fees.
- Ferguson counterclaimed, asserting that the City breached its covenant of quiet possession, that Paragraph 10 of the lease was invalid or did not give the City the right to demand additional rent without Ferguson’s concurrence, and sought a declaration of rights.
- Both parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment in the superior court.
- The superior court ruled in favor of Ferguson, dismissing the City's claim for rent based on its alleged negotiation, and interpreting Paragraph 10 to mean that either party could negotiate for rent for any five-year period beginning July 1, 1985.
- The superior court held that if the parties could not agree, either could seek a judicial determination of the "fair rental rate," with rent remaining at the old rate until a new one was established, and that parties were obligated to negotiate in good faith.
- The superior court directed that in fixing a fair rental rate, factors from another lease provision should be considered, rejecting a standard based solely on appraised highest and best use.
- The superior court initially denied Ferguson’s motion to withdraw admissions made pursuant to Civil Rule 36 due to untimely response, but later permitted the withdrawal of certain admissions after allowing Ferguson to amend his motion.
- The City appealed the superior court’s summary judgment ruling, its decisions on withdrawal of admissions, and its retention of jurisdiction; Ferguson cross-appealed regarding attorney's fees and continuing jurisdiction.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
1. Is a lease provision that agrees to renegotiate rental terms in the future, without specifying a method or standard for determining the new rent, enforceable, and if so, what standard should a court apply to determine a reasonable rent when the parties fail to agree? 2. Did the superior court abuse its discretion by allowing the lessee to withdraw admissions deemed admitted due to untimely response under Civil Rule 36(b)?
Opinions:
Majority - Rabinowitz, Chief Justice
Yes, a lease provision that agrees to renegotiate rental terms in the future, without specifying a method or standard for determining the new rent, is enforceable, and courts will imply a reasonable fair market rent based on the actual use of the property when parties fail to agree. The court affirmed the superior court's holding that Paragraph 10 is enforceable, noting that good faith is an implied term in every contract, requiring parties to attempt to reach an agreement. The court emphasized the inequity of forcing Ferguson to forfeit the property after his substantial reliance on the fifty-five-year lease term, evidenced by his construction of a service station with the City's knowledge and consent. Citing Chaney v. Schneider, the court reasoned that courts are no longer reluctant to supply missing lease terms, especially for rent, when the agreement to renew or the long term is the "essence of the contract" to effectuate the parties' reasonable expectations. The court affirmed that the standard for determining reasonable rent should be the "fair market value of equivalently used property," not the "highest and best use," because the City knew and approved of the property's use as a filling station. The court, however, reversed the superior court's dismissal of the City’s claim for back rent from 1980-1985, finding the City had made a good faith effort to negotiate and thus remanded the issue for a judicial determination of fair market rent for that period. The court affirmed the superior court's decision to allow Ferguson to withdraw admissions, holding that it subserved the merits of the action by allowing key factual issues to be litigated and that the City failed to demonstrate prejudice. The court also affirmed the superior court's inherent power to retain continuing jurisdiction over the case to facilitate the determination of future rental rates if the parties cannot agree.
Analysis:
This case significantly reinforces the principle that courts will strive to uphold contracts, even when material terms like rent are left for future agreement, particularly in long-term leases where parties have made substantial investments based on the lease's duration. By implying a "fair market rent" based on actual use, the court balances the need for contractual certainty with the realities of long-term agreements and prevents unjust enrichment or forfeiture. The decision also provides important guidance on the liberal application of Civil Rule 36(b) for withdrawing admissions, favoring resolution on the merits over technical defaults, and clarifies the discretionary power of trial courts in managing discovery and retaining jurisdiction for equitable relief.
