551 S.W.3d 462
Ky. Ct. App.2018Background
- Realco (landlord) and Edgar Stowe d/b/a Ed's Auto (tenant) signed a one-year commercial lease ending March 31, 2010; the lease explicitly omitted an option to renew.
- Parties executed a one-year amendment on Jan. 22, 2009 extending the term to March 31, 2010 and leaving other terms unchanged.
- Lease §23 (hold-over) provided that if tenant stayed after term, tenancy would convert to month-to-month at 200% of prior rent, terminable on 30 days' notice.
- Stowe remained after March 31, 2010, failed to pay rent, and ignored multiple notices; Realco terminated under §23, pursued forcible detainer, and regained possession Oct. 4, 2010.
- Realco sued for unpaid rent and damages; Stowe counterclaimed and repeatedly sought application of KRS 383.160 to extend the lease by operation of statute.
- Trial court denied Stowe’s motions applying KRS 383.160, granted Realco summary judgment for breach and damages; Stowe appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Stowe) | Defendant's Argument (Realco) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether KRS 383.160 controlled post-term possession or the lease’s hold-over clause did | KRS 383.160 applies; failure to institute proceedings within 90 days extends statutory protections, creating a one-year term | Lease §23 expressly governs hold-over, creating month-to-month tenancy at 200% rent; parties’ contract controls | Lease §23 governs; KRS 383.160 inapplicable because parties contractually addressed hold-over |
| Whether Masterson v. DeHart requires application of KRS 383.160 here | Masterson supports applying the statute when landlord did not timely act | Masterson is distinguishable because that lease lacked hold-over terms; here lease contains clear hold-over language | Masterson is inapposite; its facts differ and do not control this case |
| Whether trial court improperly granted summary judgment | There are factual disputes relevant to Stowe’s counterclaims and defenses that preclude summary judgment | Stowe did not present these factual assertions to the trial court in opposition to summary judgment; core issue is legal (contract interpretation) | Summary judgment was proper; Stowe failed to raise those factual issues below and they are irrelevant to the narrow legal question |
Key Cases Cited
- Masterson v. DeHart Paint & Varnish Co., 843 S.W.2d 332 (Ky. 1992) (statute fills gap where lease contains no hold-over provisions)
- O'Bryan v. Massey-Ferguson, Inc., 413 S.W.2d 891 (Ky. 1966) (unambiguous written contracts are enforced according to their terms)
- Elwell v. Stone, 799 S.W.2d 46 (Ky. App. 1990) (appellate briefs must show preservation of issues for review)
- Scifres v. Kraft, 916 S.W.2d 779 (Ky. App. 1996) (standard for appellate review of summary judgment)