Utah Court of Appeals
Can a commercial lessor waive lease requirements through conduct alone? McCleve Properties v. D. Ray Hult Family Explained
Summary
Marshall Industries assigned its purchase option under a commercial lease to McCleve Properties without obtaining lessor Hult’s written consent as required. When McCleve exercised the option with a closing date beyond the 120-day requirement, Hult initially agreed but later refused to close, claiming non-compliance with lease terms.
Analysis
In McCleve Properties v. D. Ray Hult Family, the Utah Court of Appeals examined whether a commercial lessor could waive strict compliance with lease provisions through conduct, even when claiming no intent to waive those requirements.
Background and Facts
Marshall Industries leased commercial property from D. Ray Hult Family Ltd. Partnership under a nine-year lease containing a purchase option exercisable between March 2005 and February 2007. The lease required Hult’s written consent for any assignment and mandated completion of the purchase within 120 days of exercising the option. In October 2006, Marshall assigned the purchase option to McCleve Properties without seeking Hult’s consent and McCleve immediately exercised the option, requesting a March 2007 closing to facilitate a section 1031 exchange. Hult responded favorably, confirming receipt and agreeing to the March closing date.
Key Legal Issues
The central issues were whether Hult waived its right to enforce the lease’s assignment consent requirement and 120-day closing deadline, and what damages were recoverable for breach of the purchase option agreement. Hult argued it could not waive rights it was unaware of, having not recently reviewed the lease terms.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The court applied established contract principles that sophisticated business parties are charged with knowledge of their contractual terms regardless of whether they actually read or remember them. Hult’s unambiguous acceptance of the assignment and agreement to a closing date beyond the contractual timeframe constituted intentional acts inconsistent with its contractual rights, resulting in prejudice to McCleve. The court distinguished between general damages (loss of bargain) and consequential damages, reversing the tax-related damages award for improper classification and remanding for analysis under the consequential damages standard.
Practice Implications
This decision reinforces that commercial parties cannot escape contractual obligations by claiming ignorance of terms they agreed to. When contract modifications or assignments occur, parties must explicitly state objections to avoid inadvertent waiver. The ruling also clarifies the distinction between general and consequential damages in option agreements, requiring foreseeability analysis for tax consequences and other special circumstances damages.
Case Details
Case Name
McCleve Properties v. D. Ray Hult Family
Citation
2013 UT App 185
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20110594-CA
Date Decided
July 26, 2013
Outcome
Affirmed in part and Reversed in part
Holding
A commercial lessor unambiguously waived its right to enforce strict compliance with lease assignment and purchase option timing requirements when it accepted the assignment without objection and agreed to a closing date outside the contractual time frame.
Standard of Review
Summary judgment reviewed for correctness, with some deference to trial court’s legal conclusions on waiver issues. Evidentiary determinations reviewed for abuse of discretion.
Practice Tip
When responding to contract modifications or assignments, explicitly state any objections to non-compliance with contract terms to avoid inadvertent waiver of enforcement rights.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.