Mahban v. MGM Grand Hotels, Inc.
691 P.2d 421, 1984 Nev. LEXIS 443, 100 Nev. 593 (1984)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Summary judgment is inappropriate when material questions of fact exist regarding a party's intent, reasonable reliance, or conduct that could imply a waiver of contractual rights or establish equitable estoppel, even if the underlying claim is for breach of contract.
Facts:
- MGM Grand Hotel leased floor space within its 'arcade' area to Topaz Mutual Co. (appellant) for two shops.
- The lease agreements contained a clause allowing either party to terminate if the leased premises were damaged beyond repair within 180 days.
- On November 21, 1980, the MGM Grand Hotel was damaged by fire to an extent sufficient to invoke the lease termination clause.
- On January 30, 1981, Topaz Mutual Co. received a letter from MGM's arcade manager.
- The letter informed Topaz Mutual Co. that a target re-opening date would be finalized in late February, that Topaz Mutual Co. would be notified when it could begin remodeling, and that all reconstruction plans required prior approval.
- Topaz Mutual Co. alleged that, in reliance upon this letter, it proceeded to order merchandise for restocking one of its shops.
- On March 17, 1981, MGM Grand Hotel sent Topaz Mutual Co. another letter seeking to terminate both leases pursuant to the destruction-of-premises clause.
Procedural Posture:
- Topaz Mutual Co. filed an action in district court seeking, among other relief, money damages for breach of the lease agreements.
- The district court (trial court) granted summary judgment against Topaz Mutual Co., concluding that, as a matter of law, Topaz Mutual Co. could not have reasonably relied on MGM's letter.
- Topaz Mutual Co. appealed the district court's summary judgment.
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 landlord's letter, sent after premises destruction, indicating a target reopening date and requiring tenant approval for reconstruction plans, create triable issues of fact concerning waiver of termination rights or equitable estoppel, thereby precluding summary judgment?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
Yes, a landlord's letter indicating a target reopening date and requiring tenant approval for reconstruction plans after premises damage does create triable issues of fact regarding waiver of termination rights or equitable estoppel, precluding summary judgment. The court found that the language of the letter, when read in the light most favorable to Topaz Mutual Co., allowed for an inference that MGM Grand Hotel intended, as of the time the letter was sent, not to exercise its right to terminate the leases. The letter's instruction that 'All plans for reconstruction must be submitted for approval,' implies that tenants were expected to invest in costly plans, which is inconsistent with an intent to terminate. The court explained that waiver is the intentional relinquishment of a known right and can be implied from conduct inconsistent with any other intention. Equitable estoppel, characterized by four elements (party to be estopped apprised of true facts, intended conduct to be acted upon, relying party ignorant of true facts, detrimental reliance), also presented triable issues, especially since affirmative conduct can mislead even without actual knowledge of facts. The court clarified that equitable estoppel can function as a bar to a defense (MGM's assertion of termination right), rather than solely as a claim for damages. Because material questions of fact remained regarding both waiver and equitable estoppel, the summary judgment was deemed inappropriate.
Analysis:
This case highlights the high evidentiary bar required for summary judgment, particularly when issues of intent, reasonable reliance, or a party's conduct implying a relinquishment of rights are central to the dispute. It clarifies that equitable estoppel can be used defensively to prevent a party from asserting a contractual right, thereby expanding its application beyond merely a cause of action for damages. The ruling reinforces that ambiguous communications or actions can create genuine issues of material fact, making a full trial necessary to ascertain the parties' true intentions and the reasonableness of any reliance.
