Hunbeach v. Hawk Real Estate Investments
This appeal by a would-be landlord against two purported subtenants turns on the lack of any intention on the part of the two purported subtenants to make the would-be landlord a third party beneficiary of two subleases which they entered into between themselves. While that conclusion might at first seem counterintuitive, it is supported both by the actual language of the master lease and the two subleases – both of which were made expressly contingent on the would-be landlord’s giving its express approval on any sublease, an express approval that was never given – and by the substantial evidence at trial affirmatively showing that the two subtenants did not want to establish any landlord-subtenant relationship when they entered into the two subleases. They had other purposes in mind. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s judgment denying the would-be landlord any recovery by way of unpaid lease payments against the two purported subtenants. The landlord’s remedy remains a claim against the original tenant that entered into the master lease with the landlord.
Comments on Hunbeach v. Hawk Real Estate Investments