From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Waters v. Merritt

Supreme Court of Alabama
Jan 21, 1965
170 So. 2d 492 (Ala. 1965)

Opinion

6 Div. 937.

March 5, 1964. Rehearing Denied January 21, 1965.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Jefferson County, Thos. E. Huey, Jr., J.

Pritchard, McCall Jones and Victor H. Smith, Birmingham, for appellant.

A limitation or exception to the common law rule is that, if the destruction of the leasehold premises is complete, the subject matter or thing leased no longer existing, the liability of the tenant for rent ceases. This because rent is a profit issuing out of the lands or tenements as compensation for the use or occupation. Hence, if the principal is gone, the interest or incident cannot continue to exist. McMillan v. Solomon, 42 Ala. 356; O'Byrne v. Henley, 161 Ala. 620, 50 So. 83, 23 L.R.A., N.S., 496; Pizitz-Smolian Co-op. Stores v. Randolph, 221 Ala. 458, 129 So. 26. When the building as an entity has ceased to exist, there is such destruction of the premises as constitutes a termination of the lease. Corbett v. Spring Garden Ins. Co., 40 App. Div. 628, 58 N.Y.S. 148; Id., 167 N.Y. 596, 60 N.E. 1109; Chase Co. v. Fleming, 143 Iowa 452, 456, 121 N.W. 1055; Smith v. Gillen, Ky., 245 S.W.2d 596. The premises are untenable within the meaning of a provision in the lease that the lease terminates on destruction of the demised premises or their becoming untenable or unfit for occupancy if the destruction is so complete that they cannot be used for the purposes for which they were leased, and cannot be restored to a fit condition by ordinary repairs or services made without unreasonable interruption of the tenant's use. 51 C.J.S. Landlord and Tenant § 99, p. 672.

Cato Hicks, Birmingham, for appellee.

The word "entire" is synonymous with the word "entirely" and means undivided, unmingled, complete in any and all of its parts. Miller v. Walley, 122 Miss. 521, 84 So. 466; Roberts v. Roberts, 118 Colo. 524, 198 P.2d 453. In Alabama, the common law rule pertaining to the destruction of leased premises by fire or inevitable accident does not release the tenant from an express covenant to pay rent. Joiner v. Brightwell, 252 Ala. 112, 39 So.2d 414; Chamberlain v. Godfrey's Adm'r., 50 Ala. 530; Cook v. Anderson, 85 Ala. 99, 4 So. 713; O'Byrne v. Henley, 161 Ala. 620, 50 So. 83.


Appellee-plaintiff, Frank V. Merritt, recovered judgment in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama, in an amount equal to two months' rent of a commercial building fixed by the terms of a written lease. From this judgment, rendered by the trial judge, without the aid of a jury, appellant-defendant appeals with appropriate assignments of error that are adequately argued in compliance with the rules of this court.

It is undisputed that the building, on or about February 15, 1959, was "gutted" (using a colloquial term) by fire. Pursuant to the terms of the rental agreement, plaintiff cancelled the rental agreement effective April 15, 1959. Thereafter, he rebuilt the building which was never occupied by appellant or her tenant after the fire.

The testimony without dispute shows that the major portion of the roof collapsed from the fire and fell to the floor, made part of concrete and part of wood, which was thoroughly soaked from standing water used to extinguish the fire. The major portion of the "old theatre" part collapsed. There was a small area on the front that had been a balcony and the entrance lobby that remained standing.

The west, east and south walls of the building, which was about 40 feet wide and 150 feet long, remained standing. The walls were made of brick and concrete blocks. The marquee and the portion where the motion picture projector was used remained standing. Three of the walls, the interior surface of which was damaged, together with some of the bricks, were used, along with the flooring, when the building was rebuilt.

The building as originally built was designed for a moving-picture theatre, with sloping floors, projector room, lobby and a marquee for display of lights. A short while after the rental contract was signed, the lessee subrented the building for use as a furniture store.

The issue presented by the pleadings and the evidence is whether or not the leased building was entirely destroyed so as to nullify the lease, which contains a provision as follows:

"This lease shall become null and void in the event said building should be entirely destroyed by fire or other casualty, or in the event the building should be condemned and ordered torn down or removed by due process of law, and the liability of the lessee for the rents thereafter accruing shall cease upon the happening of said events."

The lease makes provision for rent should the building be damaged by fire to the extent of 50% or more.

No contention is here made by appellant that she was liable for partial rent under some contingencies of the agreement. In the absence of such contention, we will address our observation to the issue that appellant was not liable for any subsequent rent because the building was entirely destroyed by fire.

The aforementioned provision nullifying the rental agreement in the event the building, the subject of the lease, is entirely destroyed by fire is comparable to the common-law rule that relieves the lessee of his obligation to pay rent on a commercial building totally destroyed by fire, so that nothing remains capable of being held or enjoyed. See Cook v. Anderson, 85 Ala. 99, 4 So. 713, from which we quote as follows:

"The settled rule is that a lessee of premises destroyed during the term by unavoidable accident is not relieved from an express promise or covenant to pay rent, unless he protects himself by a stipulation that the rent shall cease in such event, or unless the lessor covenants to rebuild or repair, or unless the destruction is of the entire subject matter of the lease, so that nothing remains capable of being held or enjoyed, which operates a dissolution of the tenancy. Chamberlain v. Godfrey, 50 Ala. 530; Warren v. Wagner, 75 Ala. 188. The destruction was not entire. Only a portion of the building was damaged. The defendants remained in possession of, and enjoyed that part of the building which was not destroyed, keeping a small portion of their goods therein. The plaintiff was entitled to recover unless some available defense exists other than the partial destruction of the building." (Emphasis supplied.)

Paraphasing the holding in the case of Corbett v. Spring Garden Insurance Co., 40 App. Div. 628, 58 N.Y.S. 148, Id., 167 N.Y. 596, 60 N.E. 1109, we find from the undisputed evidence and photographs in evidence that the building, the subject of the lease in the case at bar, though some part of it was left standing; namely, the defaced walls, the projector room and the lobby, lost its character as a building, was totally unfit and unsuitable for use or occupation either as a picture show or a furniture store, was incapable of being held or enjoyed, and instead thereof, became a broken mass, or so far in that condition that it could not properly, after the fire, be designated as a building. We think the destruction was so complete as to bring it within the meaning of an entire loss or an entire destruction by fire, as the term is used in the contract and at common law. O'Byrne v. Henley, 161 Ala. 620, 50 So. 83, 23 L.R.A., N.S., 496.

While there is a favorable presumption attending the trial court's findings on disputed evidence heard orally before him, there is no such presumption attending his construction of the facts (Lassiter Company v. Nixon, 218 Ala. 484, 487, 119 So. 17), nor where his conclusion rests on facts indisputably established. Henderson v. Henderson, 228 Ala. 438, 153 So. 646. If the trial court took an erroneous view of the law as applied to the facts, the rule of presumption does not obtain. Murphree v. Hanson, 197 Ala. 246, 72 So. 437; Turner v. Turner, 251 Ala. 295, 37 So.2d 186. We are impressed that such is the case here and that the capable and learned trial judge erroneously applied the principles of law here obtaining to the undisputed evidence as to the condition of the building immediately after the fire and before it was rebuilt.

On remandment of this cause, the trial court will vacate the judgment for the plaintiff and render judgment for the defendant.

The judgment from which this appeal was taken should be, and it is, reversed and remanded for action by the trial court in accordance with this opinion.

The foregoing opinion was prepared by B. W. SIMMONS, Supernumerary Circuit Judge, and was adopted by the court as its opinion.

Reversed and remanded.

LAWSON, SIMPSON, GOODWYN and HARWOOD, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Waters v. Merritt

Supreme Court of Alabama
Jan 21, 1965
170 So. 2d 492 (Ala. 1965)
Case details for

Waters v. Merritt

Case Details

Full title:Anna Lois WATERS v. Frank V. MERRITT

Court:Supreme Court of Alabama

Date published: Jan 21, 1965

Citations

170 So. 2d 492 (Ala. 1965)
170 So. 2d 492

Citing Cases

Edgehill Corporation v. Hutchens

Chicago Title Trust Co. v. Corp. of Fine Arts Bldg., supra. Lease contracts containing clauses nullifying and…

St. Clair Industries Inc. v. Harmon's Pipe Fitt. Co.

However, this presumption does not exist where the trial court erroneously applies the principles of law…