Utah Court of Appeals
Can ambiguous communications constitute anticipatory repudiation of a lease? Jessup v. Five Star Franchising Explained
Summary
Five Star Franchising leased property from Jessup and Kristy, but after email communications in 2018, Five Star interpreted the landlords’ responses as anticipatory repudiation and vacated in 2020. The district court granted summary judgment for Five Star, finding repudiation as a matter of law.
Analysis
In Jessup v. Five Star Franchising, the Utah Court of Appeals examined when ambiguous communications between contracting parties might constitute anticipatory repudiation of a lease agreement. The case demonstrates the critical distinction between having reasonable grounds to seek adequate assurance and actually establishing repudiation as a matter of law.
Background and Facts
Jessup and Kristy leased commercial property to Five Star Franchising under a complex lease arrangement involving a base lease and multiple addenda. While Five Star signed the base lease, Jessup and Kristy never did, though all parties signed Addendum 2. In 2018, when Five Star requested a signed copy of the base lease for an SBA loan application, Jessup and Kristy responded that they had intentionally never signed it due to “errors and inconsistencies,” preferring instead to negotiate a new lease agreement. Five Star interpreted this as repudiation and eventually vacated the premises in 2020.
Key Legal Issues
The case presented two distinct questions under Utah’s anticipatory repudiation doctrine: (1) whether Five Star had reasonable grounds to believe Jessup and Kristy intended to repudiate the lease, and (2) whether Jessup and Kristy failed to provide adequate assurance of their intent to perform.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Court of Appeals agreed with the district court that Five Star had reasonable grounds to seek adequate assurance based on the ambiguous 2018 email exchange. However, the court found that the same ambiguity that gave Five Star reasonable grounds to seek assurance also created genuine issues of material fact about whether Jessup and Kristy had provided adequate assurance. The court noted that Jessup and Kristy’s emails could reasonably be interpreted as confirming the lease remained valid through their execution of Addendum 2, which incorporated unmodified terms from the base lease.
Practice Implications
This decision clarifies that ambiguous communications can simultaneously provide reasonable grounds for seeking assurance while precluding summary judgment on the ultimate repudiation question. Practitioners should recognize that the “reasonable grounds” and “adequate assurance” inquiries serve different analytical purposes, with ambiguity cutting in opposite directions for each analysis.
Case Details
Case Name
Jessup v. Five Star Franchising
Citation
2022 UT App 86
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20210220-CA
Date Decided
July 8, 2022
Outcome
Reversed
Holding
The district court erred in granting summary judgment on anticipatory repudiation grounds because factual questions remain as to whether landlords gave adequate assurance of their intent to perform under the lease.
Standard of Review
Correctness for questions of law and ultimate grant or denial of summary judgment
Practice Tip
When challenging summary judgment on contract repudiation, ensure you specifically address both whether the opposing party had reasonable grounds to seek assurance AND whether adequate assurance was provided—these are separate legal inquiries.
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.