Kerr-McGee Corp. v. Cutter

564 P.2d 215
CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma
DecidedMay 23, 1977
Docket48500
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 564 P.2d 215 (Kerr-McGee Corp. v. Cutter) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Kerr-McGee Corp. v. Cutter, 564 P.2d 215 (Okla. 1977).

Opinion

HODGES, Chief Justice.

Kerr-McGee Corporation, appellee, as lessee of premises on which a service station building together with canopies, gasoline pumps, underground storage tanks, and other fixtures and equipment for conducting the business of a service station were located, brought a forcible entry and de-tainer action against lessor, Chester Cutter, appellant, under the provisions of 12 O.S. 1971 § 1148.1. 1 Kerr-McGee sought possession of the property when Cutter refused to yield possession of the premises after termination by Kerr-McGee of his consignee service station lease. 2 Cutter answered and cross-petitioned requesting (1) the court to reform the contract, (2) recovery of damages and exemplary damages for Kerr-McGee’s alleged failure to deliver gasoline and (3) recovery of damages for loss of income. Demurrers were sustained to the second and third causes of action. The trial court, after hearing the appellant’s evidence, sustained appellee’s demurrer to the evidence and motion for directed verdict and entered its judgment awarding possession and control of the premises together with the buildings, fixtures and equipment located thereon and costs of the action to Kerr-McGee.

Appellant asserts that the trial court was without jurisdiction because 12 O.S. § 1148.1 does not permit seeking possession of personal property or termination of collateral contractual agreements. The lease identifies the items in dispute as fixtures and equipment necessary to operation of a service station on the premises and they are specifically identified as a part of the leased premises. A cursory examination of the items listed reveals the bulk of them are fixtures, 3 but it is equally apparent that both parties to the agreement intended the *217 items listed to be considered a part of the premises for which Kerr-McGee assumed maintenance duties under the terms of the lease. 4 In Hall v. Woody, 180 Okl. 370, 69 P.2d 379, 380 (1937), it was held that parties may in dealing with chattels used in connection with real estate designate to them whatever character they desire as either realty or personalty and the courts will give the property the character the parties have placed upon it.

Kerr-McGee argues that the Court had jurisdiction because Cutter unlawfully detained real property as a tenant holding over his term after notice to quit by the landlord. We agree. It is provided by 12 O.S.1971 § 1148.3 proceedings under the Forcible Entry and Detainer Act may be had in all cases against tenants holding over their terms. 5 Cutter alleges that the relationship of landlord and tenant did not exist and, therefore, the trial court lacked jurisdiction. He argues that a service station lease agreement, coupled with a dealer agreement for the furnishing of gasoline constitutes a franchisor-franchisee relationship which may not be terminated in the absence of good cause regardless of whether the good cause provision appears in the lease.

Only one jurisdiction considering this proposition has reached the result urged by Cutter. The New Jersey Franchise Practices Act contains a provision which limits the right of termination to instances where good cause is shown. 6 In Shell Oil Co. v. Marinello, 63 N.J. 402, 307 A.2d 598 cert. den. 415 U.S. 920, 94 S.Ct. 1421, 39 L.Ed.2d 475 (1973) the New Jersey Supreme Court held that a service station lease agreement coupled with a dealer agreement to furnish gasoline constitutes a franchisor-franchisee relationship which may not be terminated without good cause whether such provision appears in the lease or dealer agreement as a matter of public policy. Although the court held the statute was not directly controlling because the last renewal antedated the effective date of the statute, the court held the Act reflected the legislative concern over long-standing abuses in the franchise relationship, particularly provisions giving the franchisor the right to terminate, and that the Act put into statutory from the extant public policy of the state.

We do not find the decision in Marinello to be persuasive because the decision was based on public policy as adopted by statute which prohibited a franchisor from failing to renew a franchise without cause. Oklahoma has not adopted a franchise law or the general public policy that a franchisee may not be terminated without good cause. We see no compelling reason to deny recovery of possession of the premises to Kerr-McGee. In all other jurisdictions in which the subject has been addressed 7 it has consistently been held that *218 the relationship is that of lessor-lessee, and that courts will not imply a good cause requirement in order to terminate the lease, but will permit the lease to be terminated in accordance with the contract provisions. We adopt the majority view that a landlord-tenant relationship existed between the parties, and that termination of the lease is to be determined by the traditional principles of real property and contract law.

Cutter also contends the trial court committed reversible error in failing to submit questions of fact to the jury, specifically the allegation that there was fraud in the inducement of the contract. 8 We find from an examination of the record that the trial court was correct in its finding there was no fraud or misrepresentation. Cutter was well aware of the termination clause in the lease 9 which provided for ten days’ written notice of termination. The mere fact that he testified, stating he was told Kerr-McGee did not like to change service station operators and if he did a good job he could keep the station as long as he desired, is not a sufficient material false representation to rise to the dignity of a question of fact for the jury.

The trial court also found the terms of the lease were not ambiguous; that proper notice of termination was given; there was no fraud or misrepresentation to induce the lease agreement, that there the appellant was not forced to purchase accessories from Kerr-McGee, nor was the price of gasoline fixed. The court also found that although the lease was for' a short term it did not shock the conscience of the court 10 and that the lease term was valid so long as it was not used to cancel or terminate for illegal purposes. 11 An examination of the record supports the trial court’s findings and conclusions.

AFFIRMED.

LAVENDER, V. C. J„ and WILLIAMS, IRWIN and BERRY, JJ., concur. BARNES, SIMMS and DOOLIN, JJ., dissent.
1

. It is provided by 12 O.S.1971 § 1148.1:

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

In Re Mako, Inc.
102 B.R. 814 (E.D. Oklahoma, 1988)
Ramirez v. Baran
1986 OK 76 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1986)
Schuminsky v. Field
1980 OK 22 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1980)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
564 P.2d 215, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kerr-mcgee-corp-v-cutter-okla-1977.