G & J Holdings, LLC v. SM Properties, LP
391 S.W.3d 895
Mo. Ct. App.2013Background
- G&J Holdings appeals a circuit court decision in SM Properties’ favor on Counts I–III and in Plaintiff’s favor on Count IV; SM Properties cross-appeals alleging insufficient attorneys’ fees, which this court declines to address after reversal.
- Lease from Dec 3, 2007, for five years of a retail Premises at Des Peres Center for a printer cartridge refilling service.
- Construction fence erected Mar 1, 2010, and renovation began May 3, 2010; Plaintiff vacated around June 23, 2010.
- Counts I–III alleged breaches related to parking-area closure, storefront boarding, and sidewalk demolition; Count II claimed breach of covenant of quiet enjoyment; Count III sought rescission; Count IV claimed conversion of Plaintiff’s advertising sign.
- Trial court granted Defendant summary judgment on Counts I, II, and III and awarded Defendant $25,000 in attorneys’ fees and costs; Plaintiff had sought summary judgment on its breach claims; final judgment split, with Count IV awarded to Plaintiff for $1 under offer of judgment; case remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of lease liability on Counts I–II | G&J contends Defendant failed to negate elements of breach. | Defendant relies on exclusive-control and access provisions to justify closures and alleged boards. | Summary judgment improper due to disputed material facts. |
| Quiet enjoyment claim | Defendant’s conduct substantially interfered with peaceful possession. | Actions were within landlord’s lease rights; no constructive eviction proven. | Precluded by disputed underlying facts; not entitled to summary judgment on quiet enjoyment. |
| Rescission | Material breach supports rescission; trial court failed to address materiality. | No breach found; materiality analysis unnecessary. | Material-breach issue remains disputed; rescission improper. |
| Attorneys’ fees | Fees awarded to Defendant were improper and based on an insufficient pleading. | Fees properly before court; Defendant prevailing. | Fees awarded to Defendant reversed; cross-appeal subsequently not addressed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Campus Lodge of Columbia, Ltd. v. Jacobson, 319 S.W.3d 549 (Mo.App.W.D.2010) (establishes prima facie breach elements and contract damages principles)
- Greenstreet v. Fairchild, 313 S.W.3d 163 (Mo.App.S.D.2010) (fact question for material breach and rescission materiality)
- Patel v. Pate, 128 S.W.3d 873 (Mo.App.W.D.2004) (material breach defined for rescission context)
- ITТ Commercial Fin. Corp. v. Midr-Am. Marine Supply Corp., 854 S.W.2d 371 (Mo. banc 1993) (summary judgment standard and evidentiary burden)
- Lunn v. Anderson, 302 S.W.3d 180 (Mo.App.E.D.2009) (genuine dispute precludes summary judgment when inferences support alternatives)