Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Schrader v. Mall, Inc.
Citations: 548 So. 2d 1353; 1989 Ala. LEXIS 334; 1989 WL 71270Docket: 88-89
Court: Supreme Court of Alabama; May 26, 1989; Alabama; State Supreme Court
Defendants appeal a judgment favoring the plaintiff in a rent recovery action. D.J. and Sonja Schrader are guarantors for a lease between The Mall, Inc. and 01' Heidelberg Kitchens, Inc. The original lease expired on December 31, 1981, but Heidelberg continued occupancy until a new lease was signed on January 31, 1982, after which they vacated. The Mall initiated legal action following failed settlement negotiations. The defendants counterclaimed for conversion of items left on the premises. The defendants assert that as guarantors, their liability is limited to the original lease and does not extend to the new lease, arguing the new lease is not an "extension or renewal" of the original. The guaranty explicitly states it remains valid regardless of changes to the lease and is a continuing obligation unaffected by lease modifications or extensions. The court must determine if the lease signed on January 31, 1982, constitutes a renewal of the original or a new lease, focusing on the significance of the one-month gap between leases. The court highlights that the original lease does not contain a renewal provision and notes that continued possession without a new lease results in a month-to-month tenancy under the original lease's terms. The new lease indicates an intention to extend the original lease's terms, which supports the plaintiff's position that the guaranty applies. The ambiguity surrounding the intent of the guaranty regarding its coverage for a subsequent lease necessitated that the trial court submit this issue to the jury. Evidence suggested that the parties intended for the guaranty to cover the lease, given that the lease indicated it was an extension and the guaranty explicitly applies to such extensions. The defendants referenced three cases from other jurisdictions to support their position, but these cases were deemed factually distinguishable from the current situation. The defendants also argued for an offset based on property left on the premises after Heidelberg vacated, claiming that the lease allowed for forfeiture only if personal property was not removed upon termination. However, the court clarified that termination can occur not only at expiration but also upon default, as stated in Article X, section 10.2(a) of the lease, which implies that default leads to termination. Although Article X, section 10.3 permits the landlord to sell goods and credit the tenant, it also confirms the cumulative nature of remedies available under the lease. Consequently, the trial court's judgment was affirmed.