K-Mart Corporation v. Oriental Plaza, Inc.
875 F.2d 907, 1989 WL 47570, 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 14569 (1989)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A mandatory injunction requiring the demolition of a structure built in violation of a restrictive covenant in a commercial lease is an appropriate remedy when the breach causes irreparable harm, such as obstructing store visibility and damaging goodwill, which cannot be adequately compensated by monetary damages.
Facts:
- K-Mart Corporation (K-Mart) and its landlord, Oriental Plaza, Inc. (OPI), entered into a commercial lease for a space in the Oriental Plaza Shopping Center.
- The lease contained restrictive covenants prohibiting OPI from building more than 10,000 square feet of new retail space in the parking area and requiring K-Mart's express written consent for any changes to the agreed-upon site plan.
- After K-Mart rejected one proposal and another approved plan was not implemented, OPI sent a fourth site plan in December 1986 showing three non-conforming retail buildings, but the cover letter only directed K-Mart's attention to a proposed bank building.
- On March 20, 1988, without K-Mart's written consent, OPI began constructing three retail buildings in the parking area.
- The new construction exceeded the square footage limit, was located closer to K-Mart's store than permitted, reduced available parking, and obstructed the public's view of the K-Mart store.
- Eleven weeks after construction began, on June 13, 1988, K-Mart formally objected to the development.
- At the time K-Mart objected, the buildings were substantially complete (one was 42% complete, the other two were at least 80% complete).
- OPI refused to halt construction after K-Mart's objection.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff K-Mart Corporation sued defendant Oriental Plaza, Inc. (OPI) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico for breach of a lease agreement.
- K-Mart sought a preliminary injunction to halt construction.
- OPI filed a motion to dismiss for failure to join indispensable parties, which the district court denied.
- During the preliminary injunction hearing, the district court consolidated the hearing with a trial on the merits.
- The district court found OPI had breached the lease and issued a permanent mandatory injunction ordering the demolition of the southernmost structure and enjoining further unauthorized development.
- OPI, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit; K-Mart is the 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:
Did the district court abuse its discretion by ordering a mandatory injunction that required a landlord to demolish a partially constructed building erected in breach of a commercial lease agreement?
Opinions:
Majority - Selya, Circuit Judge.
No. The district court did not abuse its discretion by issuing the mandatory injunction. Harm to a commercial tenant's goodwill, visibility, and store 'presence' resulting from a landlord's breach of a restrictive covenant is irreparable because it cannot be readily measured or fully compensated by monetary damages. The court rejected OPI's equitable defenses of laches and estoppel, finding K-Mart's eleven-week delay in objecting was not unreasonable and OPI's reliance on K-Mart's silence was unreasonable given the lease's clear requirement for express written consent. The court also found that the balance of equities favored granting the injunction, as OPI's significant financial loss from demolition was a 'self-inflicted' wound resulting from its own decision to knowingly breach the clear terms of the lease. Finally, the court noted a strong public interest in enforcing the solemnity of contracts to ensure fair dealing in commerce.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the principle that courts will grant significant equitable relief, including costly mandatory injunctions, to enforce clear restrictive covenants in commercial real estate leases. It establishes that intangible harms to a business, such as obstructed visibility and damage to goodwill, are considered irreparable, thus justifying remedies beyond monetary damages. The decision serves as a strong precedent against parties who knowingly breach contracts, signaling that the expense of undoing the breach is not a defense, particularly when the harm is 'self-inflicted.' This strengthens the position of commercial tenants seeking to protect bargained-for rights related to property use and appearance.
