Gotlieb v. Taco Bell Corp.
871 F. Supp. 147 (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A commercial landlord's actions, such as actively attempting to re-let a property for their own benefit, can constitute an acceptance of a tenant's lease surrender by operation of law, even if the landlord initially rejected the tenant's repudiation in writing. This acceptance terminates the original tenant's liability for any future rent.
Facts:
- On August 15, 1991, landlords Gotlieb and Blaymore entered into a 20-year commercial ground lease with tenant Taco Bell Corporation for the purpose of building and operating a restaurant.
- The lease required Taco Bell to exercise diligence in obtaining necessary permits within a six-month period ending February 15, 1992.
- Taco Bell faced significant organized opposition from local community and religious groups against the construction of the restaurant.
- On February 14, 1992, one day before the permitting period expired, Taco Bell filed its permit application and also served the landlords with a written repudiation of the lease.
- On the same day, February 14, 1992, the landlords sent a letter to Taco Bell explicitly rejecting the repudiation and stating they would hold Taco Bell liable under the lease terms.
- On October 19, 1993, despite their prior rejection of the repudiation, the landlords met directly with representatives of Rite-Aid to discuss leasing the same property.
- On November 3, 1993, the landlords submitted a written proposal with explicit lease terms to Rite-Aid, attempting to re-let the property for their own sole benefit.
Procedural Posture:
- In June 1992, Plaintiffs Gotlieb and Blaymore sued Defendant Taco Bell Corporation in federal district court for breach of a commercial ground lease.
- Plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.
- The District Judge granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs, finding as a matter of law that Taco Bell had failed to exercise due diligence in obtaining permits and that its repudiation was therefore not valid under the lease terms.
- The District Judge referred the case to a Magistrate Judge for a trial solely on the issue of damages.
- The parties consented to have the Magistrate Judge conduct all further proceedings in the case.
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 commercial landlord's conduct in actively negotiating a new lease for its own benefit with a third party, after initially rejecting the tenant's repudiation, constitute an acceptance of the surrender by operation of law, thereby terminating the tenant's liability for future rent?
Opinions:
Majority - Orenstein, United States Magistrate Judge
Yes. A landlord's conduct that is inconsistent with the continuation of the landlord-tenant relationship can constitute an acceptance of a tenant's surrender by operation of law, terminating the tenant's liability for future rent. Here, although the plaintiffs initially rejected Taco Bell's repudiation, their subsequent actions demonstrated an intent to terminate the lease and use the property for their own benefit. Specifically, the plaintiffs' decision to deal directly with Rite-Aid, which was confirmed by testimony and a written lease proposal dated November 3, 1993, was an act so inconsistent with the tenant's interest in the property that it constituted an acceptance of the surrender. This acceptance terminated the lease as of November 1993, releasing Taco Bell from any obligation to pay future rent, though they remained liable for damages that accrued up to that point, including back rent and the value of the unbuilt structure.
Analysis:
This decision provides a crucial illustration of the doctrine of surrender by operation of law in the context of commercial leases. It establishes that a landlord's explicit rejection of a tenant's repudiation is not conclusive; their subsequent actions can override their words. The case serves as a precedent and a cautionary tale for commercial landlords, demonstrating that they cannot simultaneously hold a breaching tenant liable for all future rent while also attempting to re-let the premises for their own exclusive benefit. This ruling forces landlords to make a clear choice: either do nothing and collect rent, re-let on the tenant's behalf, or accept the surrender and cut off future claims against the original tenant.
Unlock the full brief for Gotlieb v. Taco Bell Corp.