NEWMAN V. HINKY DINKY OMAHA-LINCOLN, INC.
427 N.W.2d 50 (1988)
NATURE OF THE CASE: This was a forcible entry and detainer action.
FACTS: Newman, owner, entered into a lease of his property to ACS, a Texas corporation.
The rate was a fixed rent along with additional rent based on receipts. ACS operated the
Hinky Dinky supermarkets in Nebraska. The lease provided that the tenant may not assign or
transfer the lease without the written consent of the landlord. In February 16, 1985, ACS
ceased all operation of his Hinky Dinky markets but before that date asked Newman to consent
to a proposed lease to Nash Finch Company. Newman refused consent to lease. Despite this,
ACE subleased to Finch. On March 1, 1985, Newman notified ACS and Finch that ACS was in
default under the lease and a Notice to vacate was issued. During subsequent negotiations,
Newman accepted rent from Finch but an impasse was reached and Newman filed a Notice to Quit
and filed a petition for restitution of the premises. The issue of the acceptance of the
lease payments and waiver was at bar. The trial court ruled that summary judgment was proper
as a landlord may withhold consent for any reason. The trial court also ruled that the
acceptance of lease payments from Finch was not a waiver and then granted judgment to
Newman.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner
No comments:
Post a Comment