Roy S. Oakes v. Harry Lane Nissan, Inc.

CourtCourt of Appeals of Tennessee
DecidedAugust 17, 2004
Docket03A01-9609-CH-00302
StatusPublished

This text of Roy S. Oakes v. Harry Lane Nissan, Inc. (Roy S. Oakes v. Harry Lane Nissan, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Tennessee primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Roy S. Oakes v. Harry Lane Nissan, Inc., (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004).

Opinion

I N THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

EASTERN SECTI ON

ROY S. OAKES, ) C/ A NO. 03A01- 9609- CH- 00302 ) Pl a i nt i f f - Appe l l e e , ) HAMBLEN CHANCERY ) v. ) HON. W LLI AM L. J ENKI NS, I ) CHANCELLOR HARRY LANE NI SSAN, I NC. , ) ) AFFI RMED AND De f e nda nt - Appe l l a nt . ) REMANDED

LORI L. J ESSEE a nd HERBERT M BACON, BACON, J ESSEE, PERKI NS & . SWANSON, M r i s t own, f or Pl a i nt i f f - Appe l l e e . or

RODNEY A. FI ELDS, LEW S, KI NG, KRI EG, W I ALDROP & CATRON, P. C. , Kn o x v i l l e , f or De f e nda nt - Appe l l a nt .

O P I N I O N

Fr a nks . J .

I n t hi s a c t i on f or da ma ge s f or br e a c h of l e a s e , t h e

Tr i a l J udge a wa r de d da ma ge s i n t he a mount of $25, 000. 00 a nd d e f e nda nt h a s a ppe a l e d.

The i s s ue s r a i s e d by de f e nda nt e s s e nt i a l l y c a n be

d i s t i l l e d i nt o o ne i s s ue : di d t he Tr i a l Cour t e r r i n hi s

d e t e r mi na t i on o f t he da ma ge a wa r d?

Pl a i nt i f f Roy Oa ke s owns l a nd a nd a bui l di ng on

So u t h Cumbe r l a nd St r e e t i n M r i s t own Te nne s s e e . or The bui l di n g

wa s b u i l t i n 1947- 48 a nd Oa ke s r a n a c a r de a l e r s hi p a t t he

l o c a t i on unt i l 1989. At t ha t t i me , he l e a s e d t he pr ope r t y t o

De f e nd a nt Ha r r y La ne Ni s s a n, I nc . The l e a s e wa s f or a t e r m of

f i v e y e a r s , a t $1, 500. 00 r e nt pe r mont h.

The l e a s e a gr e e me nt i nc l ude d t he f ol l owi ng t e r ms :

4. Le s s e e s ha l l ma i nt a i n a nd ke e p i n a good s t a t e of r e pa i r bot h t he i nt e r i or a nd e xt e r i or of t he bui l di ngs upon t he l e a s e d pr e mi s e s .

7. Le s s e e a gr e e s , upon t he t e r mi na t i on of t he Le a s e , t o r e t ur n t he s a i d pr e mi s e s t o t he Le s s or i n a s g ood a c ondi t i on a s whe n Le s s e e t ook pos s e s s i on, r e a s ona bl e a nd or di na r y we a r a nd t e a r e xc e pt e d.

8. Thi s i s a ne t - ne t l e a s e wi t h Le s s e e pa yi ng al l t a xe s , i n s ur a nc e pr e mi ums a nd e xpe ns e s of al l ma i nt e na n c e a nd upke e p t o ma i nt a i n s a i d bui l di ng i n a good s t a t e of r e pa i r .

9. De f a ul t by t he Le s s e e i n t he pa yme nt of a ny r e nt a l whe n d ue , f a i l ur e t o pa y t a xe s i n a t i me l y ma nne r , or f a i l ur e t o ke e p t he pr e mi s e s i ns ur e d a s a gr e e d he r e i n a nd pa y t he pr e mi s e s , t he r e f or e , o r Le s s e e ’ s f a i l ur e t o ma i nt a i n a nd ke e p t he pr e mi s e s i n a good s t a t e of r e pa i r s ha l l , a t t he opt i on of t he Le s s or , c a us e t hi s l e a s e t o t e r mi na t e a nd be of no f ur t he r f or c e a nd e f f e c t , a nd t he Le s s or s ha l l be e nt i t l e d t o t he i mme di a t e pe a c e f ul pos s e s s i on of t he pr e mi s e d, pr o vi de d, howe ve r , Le s s or s ha l l r e ma i n l i a bl e f or a ny a nd a l l mone t a r y pa yme nt s t he n due unde r t he t e r ms of t hi s Le a s e or t o be c ome due i n t he f ut ur e , mi t i ga t e d onl y t o t he e xt e nt of t he ne t pr oc e e ds of a ny moni e s r e c e i ve d by Le s s or f r om t hi r d pa r t i e s who s ha l l oc c upy t he pr e mi s e s unde r a r e nt a l a gr e e me nt f or t he r e ma i ni ng t e r m of t hi s Le a s e . . . .

2 De f e nda nt oc c upi e d t he l e a s e d pr e mi s e s t hr ough 19 9 1 ,

o p e r a t i ng a Bui c k- Ol ds mobi l e de a l e r s hi p. At t he e nd of 1991 ,

t h e Bu i c k- Ol ds mobi l e f r a nc hi s e wa s move d a c r os s t own t o t he

s a me b ui l di ng us e d f or t he Ni s s a n f r a nc hi s e . Exc e pt f or t wo

s h o r t s ubl e a s e a gr e e me nt s a nd s ome s t or a ge by de f e nda nt , t h e

b u i l d i ng wa s va c a nt f or t he r e ma i nde r of t he l e a s e t e r m.

The r e i s muc h t e s t i mony a s t o t he s t a r k di f f e r e nc e

i n t h e c ondi t i on of t he pr ope r t y a t t he i nc e pt i on a nd a t t h e

e n d o f t he l e a s e . W t ne s s e s f or pl a i nt i f f t e s t i f i e d a s t o i

t h e we l l - ma i nt a i ne d a nd ne a t c ondi t i on of t he bui l di ng be f o r e

t he l e a s e . Thi s c ondi t i on wa s c r e di t e d i n pa r t t o a n ove r a l l

r e n o v a t i on/ r e de c or a t i on 3- 5 ye a r s be f or e t he l e a s e be ga n.

Te s t i mony a s t o t he c ondi t i on of t he pr ope r t y a f t e r t he l e a s e

e n d e d t ol d of r ugs ma r ke d wi t h gr e a s e , t he r e mova l of f i xt ur e s

f r o m t he r e s t r ooms , a n a l a r m s ys t e m whi c h ha d be e n di s ma nt l e d

a n d wa s be yond r e pa i r , t he di s a ppe a r a nc e of a n a wni ng, a nd

wa t e r da ma ge t o t he t i l e s , t h e wa l l s , t h e c e i l i ng, a nd t he

r oof .

Re vi e w o f d a ma ge a wa r ds by a t r i a l c our t i s de nov o

a c c o mp a ni e d by a pr e s umpt i on of t he c or r e c t ne s s of t he

f i nd i ngs . T. R. A. P. 1 3( d) ; Le e k v . Powe l l , 884 S. W 2d 118, 1 2 0 .

( Te n n . App. 1994) .

De f e nda nt a r gue s t ha t t he da ma ge s we r e not pr ove n

wi t h r e a s ona bl e c e r t a i nt y. He di s put e s t he s pe c i f i c i t y of t he

r e c e i p t s a nd a r gue s t ha t t he Tr i a l Cour t s houl d ha ve

c o n s i d e r e d de pr e c i a t i on of t he pr ope r t y whe n c a l c ul a t i ng

r e pl a c e me nt c os t s . He f ur t he r a r gue s t ha t pl a i nt i f f i s not

e n t i t l e d t o r e c ove r be c a us e he ha d a dut y t o mi t i ga t e t he

3 d a ma g e , whi c h he a l l e ge dl y kne w wa s oc c ur r i ng.

Re ga r di ng t he dut y t o mi t i ga t e , de f e nda nt a r gue s

t h a t whe n pl a i nt i f f not i c e d c e i l i ng l e a ks dur i ng a 1991 vi s i t

t o t h e pr ope r t y, he c oul d ha ve i nvoke d Se c t i on Ni ne of t he

l e a s e t o t a ke ba c k pos s e s s i on of t he pr ope r t y a nd mi ni mi z e t h e

d a ma ge a nd r e pa i r c os t s . De f e nda nt c l a i ms t ha t be c a us e

p l a i n t i f f i ns t e a d l e t t he pr obl e m c ont i nue f or s e ve r a l ye a r s ,

h e i s not e nt i t l e d t o t he hi ghe r c os t of r e pa i r a nd

r e pl a c e me nt t ha t wa s r e qui r e d a t t he e nd of t he l e a s e .

The s t a nda r d f or mi t i ga t i on of da ma ge s i s r e a s ona b l e

car e. Cummi ns v . Br odi e , 667 S. W 2d 759, 766 ( Te nn. App. .

1 9 8 3 ) ; al s o s e e Hai l e y v . Cunni ngham, 654 S. W 2d 392, 396 .

( Te n n . 1983) . He r e , t he Tr i a l Cour t f ound c r e di bl e

p l a i n t i f f ’ s a s s e r t i ons t ha t he ha d t ol d s e ve r a l me mbe r s of

d e f e n d a nt ’ s s t a f f on s e v e r a l oc c a s i ons a bout t he l e a ks a nd t h e

n e e d f or r e pa i r . Thi s f i ndi ng i s a c c ompa ni e d by a pr e s umpt i o n

o f c o r r e c t ne s s whi c h i s not ove r c ome by t he t e s t i mony i n t h e

r e c or d. The a c t i on of r e que s t i ng t he r oof be r e pa i r e d wa s

r e a s o n a bl e , c ons i de r i ng t ha t t he ot he r c ove na nt s of t he l e a s e

we r e b e i ng f ol l owe d a nd pl a i nt i f f c oul d f a i r l y a s s ume t ha t

d e f e n d a nt woul d c or r e c t t he pr obl e m. Gi ve n t he s e e f f or t s b y

p l a i n t i f f a nd t a ki ng i nt o c ons i de r a t i on t ha t t he Tr i a l Cour t

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

Related

Hailey v. Cunningham
654 S.W.2d 392 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1983)
Cummins v. Brodie
667 S.W.2d 759 (Court of Appeals of Tennessee, 1983)
Leek v. Powell
884 S.W.2d 118 (Court of Appeals of Tennessee, 1994)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Roy S. Oakes v. Harry Lane Nissan, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roy-s-oakes-v-harry-lane-nissan-inc-tennctapp-2004.