 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Parr v. Triple L&J;Corp.11/18/2004
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND CASE REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS
In this case involving a real estate lease, defendants, Triple L&J;Corporation and Scott T. Schafer, appeal the judgment in favor of plaintiffs, Frank Parr and Dora Bailey. The trial court determined that Triple L&J;breached the lease by unreasonably withholding consent to an assignment and that Triple L&J;and Schafer were liable for intentional interference with a prospective business advantage. The court awarded punitive, economic, and non-economic damages and assessed costs and attorney fees. We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand.
Schafer became the president and the sole shareholder of Triple L&J;in 1998, several years after it had leased commercial space to plaintiffs for a restaurant. The lease allowed assignment by plaintiffs with prior written consent of Triple L&J;and required that Triple L&J;not unreasonably withhold its consent.
When plaintiffs attempted to sell their restaurant business and assign their interest in the lease to a third party, they sought approval for the assignment. Defendants requested personal and financial information about the prospective buyer, which plaintiffs promptly provided. Defendants then requested more detailed information, including photocopies of driver's licenses, social security cards, and fifteen years of work history. Plaintiffs again provided the requested information.
However, defendants deferred making a decision on the assignment, thereby delaying the sale of the business until the prospective buyer withdrew his offer.
Plaintiffs then initiated this action seeking damages for breach of contract and intentional interference with a prospective business advantage, alleging that defendants deliberately withheld consent to the assignment to sabotage the sale because of personal animosity between the parties. They also asserted claims for emotional distress and punitive damages.
Following a bench trial, the court found that Triple L&J;unreasonably had withheld consent to assignment of the lease. It also found both defendants liable for intentional interference with a prospective business advantage. The court awarded plaintiffs $20,000 on the breach of contract claim against Triple L&J; representing the lost profits from the attempted sale, and $20,000 on the tort claim against both defendants, jointly and severally. However, the court specifically ordered that damages arising from the tort claim would be parallel to, not in addition to, the contract damages. The court also awarded Bailey $1,500 for emotional distress and both plaintiffs $5,000 for exemplary damages. It later awarded costs and attorney fees to plaintiffs against both defendants under a prevailing party clause in the lease. This appeal followed.
I.
Defendants contend the evidence at trial was insufficient to support the court's conclusion that Triple L&J;breached the contract by unreasonably withholding consent to the assignment. We disagree.
When sufficiency of the evidence is challenged on appeal, we must determine whether the evidence, viewed as a whole and in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, is sufficient to support the verdict. Frontier Exploration, Inc. v. Am. Nat'l Fire Ins. Co., 849 P.2d 887 (Colo. App. 1992).
In determining whether a landlord has unreasonably refused to consent to an assignment, a court should consider only those factors that relate to the landlord's interest in preserving the value of the property, and the court must evaluate whether a reasonably prudent person in the landlord's position would have also ref
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Colorado Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|