Funk v. Funk
1981 Ida. LEXIS 375, 633 P.2d 586, 102 Idaho 521 (1981)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Where a lease contains a clause requiring the lessor's consent to a sublease, the lessor may not unreasonably or arbitrarily withhold that consent, even if the lease does not explicitly state that consent cannot be unreasonably withheld.
Facts:
- In November 1969, Ewald and Pearl Funk (lessors) leased farmland to Melvin and Diane Funk (lessees) for a ten-year term.
- The lease agreement included a clause stating that the lessees had the right to sublease the property 'provided that the consent of the Lessor is first obtained.'
- In early 1978, the lessees informed the lessors of their desire to sublease the property for the upcoming crop year.
- The lessors unequivocally refused to consent, stating, 'we cannot allow a sublease of any type.'
- The lessors later offered to consent only if the lessees agreed to rewrite the lease to include new, more financially burdensome terms, including giving the lessors half of the sublease proceeds.
- Despite the refusal, the lessees proceeded to sublet a portion of the property for the 1978 crop year.
- Upon discovering the sublease in September 1978, the lessors served the lessees with a notice of termination of the lease agreement.
Procedural Posture:
- Ewald and Pearl Funk (plaintiff-lessors) filed an action against Melvin and Diane Funk (defendant-lessees) in an Idaho trial court, seeking to terminate the lease agreement.
- The trial court entered a summary judgment in favor of the lessees, declaring the lease to be in full force and effect.
- The lessors (appellants) appealed the summary judgment to the Supreme Court of Idaho.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a lessor have an absolute right to arbitrarily withhold consent to a sublease when the lease provides that the lessee may sublease only with the lessor's prior consent?
Opinions:
Majority - Shepard, J.
No. A lessor may not unreasonably withhold consent to a sublease when the lease requires such consent. The court adopts the minority rule that implies a standard of reasonableness into consent clauses in leases, departing from the traditional rule that allowed a lessor to arbitrarily withhold consent for any reason. The court reasons that the traditional rule serves no desirable public policy and virtually nullifies the lessee's contractual right to sublet. Restraints on the alienation of property are disfavored in the law. A lessor's refusal to consent is reasonable only when it is based on legitimate concerns, such as the proposed subtenant's financial responsibility or their ability to properly care for the property. Withholding consent for purely financial reasons, such as seeking to renegotiate the lease for a higher rent, is unreasonable and arbitrary.
Dissenting - Bakes, C.J.
Yes. When a lease unambiguously and unconditionally requires a lessor's consent to a sublease, the lessor has an absolute right to withhold that consent for any reason. The majority's decision to inject a 'reasonableness' requirement into the contract is an improper judicial rewriting of the parties' unambiguous agreement, encroaching on the freedom to contract and the province of the legislature. This holding disregards the parties' expressed intentions and creates uncertainty for thousands of existing leases that were drafted in reliance on the traditional majority rule. If the parties had intended to limit the lessor's discretion, they could have included language stating that consent 'shall not be unreasonably withheld.' The court's new rule will frustrate parties' attempts to avoid litigation and will inevitably lead to disputes over what constitutes a 'reasonable' refusal.
Analysis:
This decision marks Idaho's adoption of the modern, minority rule regarding a lessor's duty in consenting to a sublease, aligning lease law more closely with contract principles of good faith and fair dealing. It significantly curtails a landlord's power by preventing them from using a consent clause as leverage to arbitrarily block a transfer or to extract financial concessions not bargained for in the original lease. This ruling protects the lessee's right to alienate their property interest and provides a more equitable balance between the landlord's legitimate interests in protecting their property and the tenant's interest in utilizing the value of their leasehold. The decision signals a shift away from treating leases purely as conveyances of property toward a view that also emphasizes their contractual nature.
