Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Budd Land Company, Ltd. v. K & R Realty Company
Citations: 283 S.E.2d 665; 159 Ga. App. 448; 1981 Ga. App. LEXIS 2640Docket: 62348
Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia; September 8, 1981; Georgia; State Appellate Court
On October 10, 1978, Roger Budd Chevrolet, Inc. executed an Asset Sale Agreement to sell its business to William Kehoe and Joseph Robert, contingent upon several conditions including the formation of a corporation by the purchasers, obtaining a dealership agreement, and executing a 10-year lease with specified terms. The lease, executed on December 1, 1978, between Budd Land Company and K. R. Realty Company, included a provision allowing the lessee to terminate the lease if any part of the premises was taken or condemned under eminent domain. In 1979, the City of Valdosta and Lowndes County condemned narrow strips of land surrounding the property, resulting in $17,975 compensation to Budd Land Company. K. R. Realty Company exercised its option to terminate the lease based on the condemnation clause, leading to Kehoe Chevrolet, Inc. vacating the premises. Budd Land Company subsequently filed a lawsuit for unpaid rent under the lease. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of K. R. Realty Company. The court addressed two main arguments from Budd Land Company: 1. The interpretation of the condemnation clause should allow for parol evidence to clarify the parties’ intent. The court found the clause was clear and standard, not ambiguous, thus not necessitating oral testimony or jury interpretation. 2. The appellant argued the legal maxim "De minimis non curat lex" should apply, asserting the minor amount of land taken did not significantly impair the lessee's use of the premises. The court rejected this, emphasizing that the lease explicitly granted the lessee the right to terminate upon any taking, regardless of the extent or impact on use. The court underscored that the contractual terms should be enforced as written, affirming the lessee’s right to terminate based on the lease provisions. The trial court's ruling to grant summary judgment was affirmed, with judges Banke and Carley concurring.