*1 to correct errors. As motion or in the

such, is waived. the issue Wallace, TUCKER, Jr., A. Fred C. John Boleman, Houk, the trial court E. Edward J. J.

Accordingly, hold that Robert we Mahrdt, Jr., George Kurt C. Charbon allowing the evidence to be did not err neau, Gary Schrage, introduced. T. B. War Jewett, stler, Maurice C. Mar John IIL. French, tindale, Roy Alt Hans T. G. allegation Backer, Ellis, of error deals man, final E. Herbert Don by the defend received Partners, Wilds, the sentence and Robert W. General convicted of two The defendant was ant. Partner, Individually, Limited counts of and of three counts of murder Company, In Line 31 an d/b/a im judge The trial attempted murder. Partnership, Appellants, Limited diana possible on maximum sentence posed the v. sentences and ordered the each count amounted to a consecutively. This served Raymond L. and Loretta RICHEY The defendant con years. sentence of Richey, Appellees. mani were the maximum sentences tends No. 384 S festly unreasonable. a sentence R.Ap.Rev.Sen. Ind. Under Indiana. Supreme Court of rea- unless no manifestly unreasonable not ap- 21, 1984. find the sentence person would March sonable offense and of- particular propriate original judge, at the The trial fender. hearing, stated that his reasons

sentencing were imposing the sentences multiple crimes committed

defendant murder attempted

sisting of murder and depreci- any lesser sentence

and that the crimes. The

ate the seriousness subsequently amended

judge aggravating circum- gave additional the fact that the These included

stances. Plastics with went to Crescent

defendant killing three men he held intention of firing, the defend-

responsible for his range while one victim at close

ant shot life, that the pleading for his

victim was victim, and that

defendant stalked another deputy to shoot a attempted defendant was autho- The sentence received

sheriff. statute, judge trial ade- and the

rized enhancing his reasons

quately detailed no error There is

the sentence.

sentencing. reasons, there foregoing all of the

For error

was no reversible affirmed. court should be

of the trial

Judgment affirmed. DeBRULER, C.J., PREN-

GIVAN, PIVARNIK, JJ., concur.

TICE and *2 Cream, operate

of Indiana Ice a Bres- Ice sler's Flavors Cream in the mall.

Both the lease between Landlord and Indiana Ice Cream and the sublease exe- Aikman, Jr., Stephen Pe- Richard E. cuted Indiana Iee Cream and the Rich- ters, Stewart, Irwin, Gilliom, Mey- Fuller & eys, provisions respecting contain identical Frandsen, Parr, er, Indianapolis, Kent change modify Landlord's or Morton, Lebanon, Obremsky for Richey, & plans appellants. specifically include the Tesanovich, Portage, Michael Milan D. the mall area. Andreoli, Lebanon, Robinson, Frederick In- pertinent are con- dianapolis, appellees. (15): paragraphs tained Morris, Barkley, Stephen "(1) Leased Premises. Associates, Inc., Legal Melvin Simon & # u # # # # Dept., Indianapolis, for Melvin Simon & "Landlord Associates, Inc. amicus curiae. change modify or and fa- Shopping cilities of the Center without PETITION TO TRANSFER Tenant, the consent of the but neither GIVAN, Chief Justice. premises the leased nor the Shopping character of the Center shall appel- This cause comes before us on be without such consent. lants' Petition to Transfer. We thereby decision of Tenant, Petition vacate the grants "Landlord its invi- Appeals reported at 448 tees, Court general public, customers to- N.E.2d 1206. gether subject rights with and to the time, by granted, from time to Land- Richey, appellees, Raymond and Loretta Shopping lord to other tenants of the dispute concerning in a became involved Center, to use the Mall Com- agreements Rich- certain lease between the mon Area and the Common Area eys, as tenants in the Greenwood Center, Shopping hereinafter of the Center, Shopping and the landlord F.C. defined. Tucker, Jr., (Landlord), appellants. et al. 'Shopping "'The term Center' whenever Richeys ultimately against filed suit used herein shall mean Greenwood sought of lease and Landlord structures, Mall, including any and all punitive damages. The Boone Circuit facilities, facilities parking common granted partial summary judgment Court property and the like on the described Richeys partial summa- favor of the B, may in Exhibit as the same from ry judgment favor of Landlord. changed, together time to time with be Appeals affirmed. Tucker v. Court may from the structures thereon which (1983) Ind.App., Richey, into a written lease Indiana Iee Cream for as the B-5 On August site in the agreement premises designated Landlord entered Greenwood with lessee Mall. time to time be included Shopping Center. k development G ^[*] expansion # Landlord # # "(15) Shopping Common Area of Center corpora- lee Cream is a real estate Indiana Ice tion for Indiana-Bressler's 388Flavors The common areas of the -Costs. shops. Shopping Pursuant to the terms of shall consist of Cream Center Area, being the en- 'Mall Common Indiana Ice Cream sublet the B-5 Richeys to the so the closed common area as shown on the location could A, agreement plot plan exercise franchise attached hereto as Exhibit Flavors, organization Jack's 88 an affiliate mall with heated and air conditioned corridors, areas, fixtures and rest- nent retail kiosks in the mall violated terms Area,' rooms, 'Open regarding changing "gen- areas, sidewalks, parking eral character" of mall. The Court of access, landscaped ways Appeals summary judgment affirmed buildings roadways outside private below, finding the lease terms to unam- Shopping Center. biguous applying the "four corners" J ^[*] ^[*] u # rule. *3 the Mall Com-

"Tenant shall not use repeated rule that It is an oft courts will parties' contracts. Area not rewrite Prudential Area or the Common mon storage merchan- any display or of Lancaster, Co. America v. Insurance of any way in that use such areas 292, dise or (1966) Ind.App. 139 of such interfere with the use "temporary" among is not the The word tenants, employ- their by areas by parties formulating other in terms chosen invitees, without ees and agreements. Although lease and, shall form, consent of Landlord preprinted in some written lease is set out a rules and comply with all reasonable provisions contained therein were stricken respect regulations of Landlord parties, and we assume that other thereto. Landlord inserted, had that terms could have been additions, charges [sic], dele- make parties. intent of the been the tions, improvements and alterations The word "kiosk" is defined WarBstErRr's and to adver- and to such Dictionary (2d college 777 ed. New entertainment and edu- tising displays, 1982) as follows: events, and displays, cational and Persia, Turkey a summer "1. thereon." pavilion open house or of construction 2. terms Richey Mr. understood above open small structure a somewhat similar had the to mean that sides, at one or more used as a news- kiosks, temporary such as enter- construct bandstand, stand, subway, entrance to a displays, al- tainment and educational etc." testified, deposition, that at his though he judicial definition of the term is found One to him that representations were made Honolulu v. Am City and of permit permanent Landlord would not (1981) 589, 590, bler, App. 1 623 Hawaii Richeys occupied The kiosks in the mall. Worps (as 92, P.2d cited in 28A anD opened their Bres- the B-5 location and PHrasEs, 48). Supp., p. Here "kiosk" Ice Cream on Octo- sler's 83 Flavors as a is defined as a small structure used 1977, November, perma- In a ber newsstand, entertainment booth or the like. by the "Peanut occupied nent retail kiosk gift shop In a was considered to be Ambler Richeys' near the store Shack" was erected dictionary judicial defini- a kiosk. The A Area. second kiosk in the Mall Common certainly contemplate a tions of a "kiosk" north to the east and was built a or at least semi- structure of Richeys' shop. The Peanut Shack and the sales, retail permanent nature used for complaints to Land- made several Appeals' interpre- opposed to the Court of and location of the lord the existence about advertising temporary a or enter- tation of kiosks, eventually the B-5 lo- vacated display. tainment June, filing this action. after cation nothing quoted lease lan- We find made no written The trial court parties indicate the intended to guage to or conclusions of law. of fact permit kiosks in limit Landlord's evidently on summary based tempo- Area to those of a law, (1) determination, as a matter a rary nature. only tempo- language permitted appellate court's disagree with the We entertainment, advertising, and educa- rary provisions. We interpretation of kiosks; or, perma- the erection of tional Judge HUNTER, construction PIVARNIK, find Ratliff's to be PRENTICE and adopt persuasive, dissenting more JJ., concur.

opinion: DeBRULER, J., separate dissents with "I agree cannot with the construction placed upon provisions the clear question majority opin-

leases DeBRULER, Justice, dissenting. agree provisions ion. relevant governs written lease pur- quoted majority opinion are clear suant to its terms the was reserved in unambiguous. majority's the landlord of the center to is, say struction of those additions, deletions, changes, "make altera- least, my opinion, strained. In improvements tions and in and to such ar- questioned provisions clearly reserve to eas, permit advertising and to displays, en- alter, change, the landlord the tertainment and displays, educational modify *4 events, and kiosks thereon." shopping long general so as the unchanged, character of the center is key provision "per- word is erect kiosks therein. The landlord mit". The landlord retained the "to having under the leases to erect synonym ... kiosks thereon." The kiosks, subject only to the limitation that for it position most favorable to the general character of the mall not be landlord this case would be "license". changed, granting summary judg- So understood the lease authorizes the ment favor of was error. landlord to license others to have "advertis- There is no contention that ing displays, entertainment and educational character of mall was events, displays, and and kiosks" within the kiosks, and, fact, Anyone it not. mall common area. In essence it autho- shopping familiar with malls is well rizes the landlord to license others to have aware that kiosks are not an unusual events, "displays ... and kiosks" in the usage and are a common attribute of mall majority common area. The concludes clearly such malls. The landlord and in that a kiosk is a small stand or booth of a unambiguous language reserved understood, semi-permanent nature. So to install kiosks. There was no simply authorizes the landlord to express violation of the lease or of the license others to use common mall area for quiet enjoyment. judg- covenant of "displays ... events" and small stands or wrong ment of the trial court semi-permanent booths of a nature. should reversed." 448 N.E.2d at aegis Under the of these lease possession the landlord took exclusive Having determined Landlord area, parcels two of the mall common reserved build kiosks erected, of, permitted large the erection Area, we hold as a matter of them, upon booths and received law that the construction and maintenance consideration from retailers in return for of the Peanut Shack kiosk does not violate occupancy. their exclusive This constitut- quiet the lease nor the covenant of ed a lease and not a license. creation enjoyment. say, Needless to there parcels of leasehold estates discrete compensatory damages entitlement no within the mall common area resulted. Un- shown, punitive damage there can be no der the center award. convey such reserved Ap- estates areas within the common mall.

We therefore vacate the Court of decision, peals agree with the trial court that there was a and reverse and remand this proceedings cause for consistent with this and would affirm judgment.