Jenkins v. Eckerd Corp.

District Court of Appeal of Florida
913 So. 2d 43 (2005)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

When the terms of a commercial lease are clear, complete, and unambiguous, courts will not consider extrinsic evidence to alter the plain meaning of the language. A contractual right conditioned on the actions of a specifically named entity will be strictly construed and will not be interpreted to include that entity's successors or assigns unless such language is explicitly included.

Facts:

In January 1991, Sandhill Developments (lessor) leased space in its shopping center to K & B Florida Corporation (lessee), a pharmaceutical retailer.
The lease was anchored by a pre-existing lease with Delchamps, Inc., a supermarket.
Article 2B of the K & B lease stated that the "continued leasing and payment of rent... by Delchamps" was a key consideration and that if Delchamps should "fail or cease to lease and pay rent for its store," the lessee would have the right to cancel its lease.
The lease provision specifically named "Delchamps" and did not include language such as "or its successors and assigns."
Over time, Eckerd Corporation became the successor lessee to K & B.
Delchamps filed for bankruptcy and assigned its anchor tenant lease to Bruno's Supermarkets, Inc.
Bruno's began operating a grocery store in the former Delchamps space and continued paying rent under the terms of the assigned lease.
Upon learning of the assignment, Eckerd notified Sandhill that it was cancelling its lease, invoking Article 2B on the grounds that Delchamps itself had ceased to be the lessee.

Procedural Posture:

Sandhill filed suit against Eckerd in a Florida trial court for breach of the shopping center lease.
Eckerd filed a counterclaim for the return of rent payments made after its notice of termination.
During a nonjury trial, the court sustained Eckerd's objection and excluded Sandhill's proffered parol evidence regarding the parties' original intent in drafting the lease.
At the close of Sandhill's case, the trial court granted Eckerd's motion for a directed verdict, ruling the lease was unambiguous.
A final judgment was entered in favor of Eckerd on both the complaint and the counterclaim.
Sandhill, as appellant, appealed the final judgment to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District, with Eckerd as appellee.

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 lease provision granting a tenant the right to terminate if a specifically named anchor tenant, 'Delchamps,' ceases to lease and pay rent create a latent ambiguity that permits extrinsic evidence when Delchamps assigns its lease to a successor who continues to operate a grocery store and pay rent?

Opinions:

Majority - Van Nortwick, J.

No. A commercial lease provision that is clear on its face does not contain a latent ambiguity, and courts must enforce the contract as written without resorting to extrinsic evidence. The lease unambiguously granted the lessee the right to terminate if the specifically named entity, 'Delchamps,' ceased to be the tenant, regardless of whether a successor took its place. The court reasoned that the parol evidence rule bars the introduction of testimony about the parties' intent when a contract contains an integration clause and its terms are clear. The court refused to rewrite the contract by inserting 'successors or assigns,' noting that sophisticated commercial parties are free to negotiate such terms and their absence is significant. Because the triggering condition—Delchamps ceasing to lease the property—occurred, Eckerd was within its contractual rights to terminate the lease, even if the result seems harsh.

Dissenting - Ervin, J.

Yes. The lease contains a latent ambiguity because it is silent on the parties' rights and duties in the event Delchamps assigned its lease, an action permitted under the Delchamps lease itself. This silence reveals an insufficiency that requires the court to consider extrinsic evidence to determine the parties' true intent. The proffered evidence showed the purpose of the clause was to ensure the presence of an operating anchor grocery store to drive traffic, not to require the specific corporate entity of Delchamps. Enforcing the literal language results in a disproportionate forfeiture for the landlord when the tenant received the actual benefit it bargained for, making the specific identity of the tenant an immaterial part of the agreement.

Analysis:

This decision reinforces the primacy of the 'four corners' rule in Florida contract interpretation, particularly for sophisticated commercial parties. It underscores that courts are highly reluctant to look beyond the plain language of an agreement or to rewrite a contract to save a party from a harsh but clearly articulated term. The ruling serves as a strong warning to contract drafters to be exhaustive and precise, explicitly accounting for contingencies like assignment by including terms like 'successors and assigns' if that is the intended meaning. The dissent highlights a competing interpretive principle that favors avoiding forfeiture and examining the commercial purpose of a clause, suggesting this area of law involves a tension between strict textualism and more purposive interpretation.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Jenkins v. Eckerd Corp. (2005)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"