Washington Nat. Corp. v. SEARS, ROEBUCK

474 N.E.2d 116, 1985 Ind. App. LEXIS 2161
CourtIndiana Court of Appeals
DecidedFebruary 13, 1985
Docket1-384A63
StatusPublished
Cited by20 cases

This text of 474 N.E.2d 116 (Washington Nat. Corp. v. SEARS, ROEBUCK) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Washington Nat. Corp. v. SEARS, ROEBUCK, 474 N.E.2d 116, 1985 Ind. App. LEXIS 2161 (Ind. Ct. App. 1985).

Opinion

NEAL, Judge.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Plaintiff-appellant, Washington National Corporation (WNC), appeals from a negative judgment of the Vigo Superior Court in its action against defendant-appellee, Sears, Roebuck & Co. (Sears), for unpaid rent computed on Sears' gross sales according to its percentage rent lease.

We affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

On June 7, 1968 Sears entered into a "Shopping Center Lease" (lease) with Honey Creek Square, Inc. (Honey Creek), to lease space in its mall, Honey Creek Square Shopping Center. The lease became effective on November 1 of that year for a term of 30 years plus 4 five-year options. WNC is the successor to and assignee of Honey Creek's rights under the lease.

The lease is a standard Sears form which was modified pursuant to negotiations between Honey Creek and Sears before ratification. Rent due WNC by Sears under the lease is based solely on a percentage basis of Sears' net sales made on the Honey *118 Creek store, with no guaranteed minimum. The monthly amount is calculated according to paragraph 8 of the lease which reads, in pertinent part:

"(a) Tenant, in consideration of said demise, does covenant and agree with Landlord to pay as rental for all of said demised premises (including the above mentioned retail store and attached Tire Service Station) a sum equal to three per cent (8%) of so much of "Net Sales" (as herein defined), made by Tenant upon the demised premises during any Lease Year (as herein defined) during the first three (8) years of the term hereinabove provided, as are not in excess of Eight Million Dollars ($8,000,000), and a sum equal to two and one-half per cent (2%) of so much of such Net Sales made by Tenant upon the demised premises during any Lease Year commencing with the fourth year of said term and continuing thereafter to the end of said term, as are not in excess of Eight Million Dollars ($8,000,000), and a further sum, applicable during the entire lease term, equal to one and one-half per cent (1%%) of such Net Sales as are in excess of Eight Million Dollars ($8,000,000), said rentals to be paid in monthly installments within fifteen (15) days after the end of each calendar month during the term hereof.
(b) The words "Net Sales" as used herein mean gross sales made upon the demised premises by Tenant and its departmental sublesses, concessionaires and licensees occupying space upon said demised premises, but deducting or excluding, as the case may be, the following: (i) Sales of departments or divisions not located upon said demised premises; (ii) The amount of all sales, use, excise retailers' occupation or other similar taxes imposed in a specific amount, or percentage upon, or determined by, the amount of retail sales made upon said demised premises; (iii) Returns and allowances, as such terms are known and used by Tenant in the preparation of Tenant's profit and loss statements; (iv) Delivery, rental, installation and service charges; (v) Amounts in excess of Tenant's (or of its sublessees', concessionaires' and licensees'), cash sales price charged on sales made on credit or under a time payment plan; (vi) Sales of merchandise ordered through the use of Tenant's catalog order channels, regardless of the place of order, payment or delivery; (vii) Policies of insurance sold on said demised premises and the premiums collected on policies of insurance; (vill) Sales made through the Commercial and Industrial Sales Department of Tenant."

Sears paid rent to Honey Creek Square, Inc., and its successor/assignee WN C, without incident until December, 1981 when WNC requested and carried out an audit in accordance with the terms of the lease. The auditor's report stated that in December, 1981, Sears did not include in net sales the following:

Alteration Sales $ - Gift Wrapping Sales 1,262 Bike Set-up sales 112 Auto Labor Sales 16,269 Service Contract (Maintenance Agreement) Sales 53,518 Service Center Sales 18,217

Sears admits that these amounts were not included in its report of net sales for December, 1981. Sears stated it had never included income from these categories in its net sales figure, except "auto labor" which had been included from November, 1977 through September, 1981 due to a misunderstanding on the part of its in-store controller.

WNC sued Sears to recover rent based on the above exclusions from net sales. The trial court found that under the lease "gross sales" means sales of merchandise or property and that each contested category constitutes a service provided by Sears and profits generated therefrom had properly been excluded from net sales under provision 8(b)(iv) of the lease. WNC appeals this decision. We affirm.

ISSUE

Consolidating the two arguments made by WNC, we find one basic issue:

*119 Whether the trial court erred in interpreting the lease to exclude from net sales all monies received by Sears through gift wrapping, clothes alteration, bike set-up, auto labor, maintenance agreements and appliance repair.

DISCUSSION AND DECISION

WNC appeals from a negative judgment; therefore, we will reverse the decision only if the evidence viewed most favorably to the trial court ruling leads uncon-trovertibly to the opposite conclusion. Bohnke v. Bohnke, (1983) Ind.App., 454 N.E.2d 446. WNC may only succeed if the trial court's judgment is contrary to law. Kroger v. Haun, (1978) 177 Ind.App. 403, 379 N.E.2d 1004.

The trial court made the following relevant findings of fact and conclusions of law:

"FINDINGS OF FACT
6. The additional 'sales' reported in the audit relate to the following operations of Sears at its Honey Creek store:
(a) Gorment Alteration. This occurs most often in men's clothing. When Sears sells clothing to a customer, some typical alterations (e.g. cuffs, sleeve shortening and lengthening) are included in the sales price. If a customer wants additional, more extensive alterations, a separate charge is made for that service. The separate charge for the additional alteration service is not included by Sears in its report of net sales.
(b) Gift Wrapping. Sears maintains a gift wrap counter at which customers may have gift wrapped merchandise which is purchased at Sears or from other stores. The major part of the cost to Sears of operating this department is the labor costs. The costs of wrapping paper and materials are incidental to the service. Sears does not report its income from gift wrapping in net sales.
(c) Bike Set-up. Sears sells bicycles which are purchased in a box by customers at the sales price. The bicycles require some assembly which can be done by the customer. Sears also offers to its customers the service of assembling bicycles for an additional fee. When requested, the bicycles are set-up or assembled by Sears employees at the store, and the separate charge for the set-up is not reported in net sales.
(d) Auto Lobor.

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

Related

Fellows v. Board of Trustees of Welborn Clinic
63 F. Supp. 2d 942 (S.D. Indiana, 1998)
Omnisource Corp. v. CNA/Transcontinental Insurance
949 F. Supp. 681 (N.D. Indiana, 1996)
Ryan v. Ryan
659 N.E.2d 1088 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1995)
Matter of Penrod
169 B.R. 910 (N.D. Indiana, 1994)
Monarch Beverage Co. v. Indiana Department of State Revenue
589 N.E.2d 1209 (Indiana Tax Court, 1992)
DeHaan v. DeHaan
572 N.E.2d 1315 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1991)
In Re Doty
129 B.R. 571 (N.D. Indiana, 1991)
Marriage of Thomas v. Thomas
548 N.E.2d 1194 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1990)
Highman v. Schafer
546 N.E.2d 1287 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1989)
Matter of Estate of Langley
546 N.E.2d 1287 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1989)
Lutz v. Belli
516 N.E.2d 95 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1987)
Romain v. A. Howard Wholesale Co.
506 N.E.2d 1124 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1987)
In Re Greives
81 B.R. 912 (N.D. Indiana, 1987)
Isidore Strauss v. Stratojac Corporation
810 F.2d 679 (Seventh Circuit, 1987)
Board of Zoning Appeals v. Beta Tau Housing Corp.
499 N.E.2d 780 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1986)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
474 N.E.2d 116, 1985 Ind. App. LEXIS 2161, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/washington-nat-corp-v-sears-roebuck-indctapp-1985.