Boston LLC v. Juarez (2015)

Citation: Boston LLC v. Juarez (2015)
Parent Document: Boston LLC v. Juarez (2015)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2015-10-02
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3006950/boston-llc-v-juarez/ ↗

Full Text

1,964 chars

2
The majority seem to distinguish Loehmann’s on the ground that the tenant in the
Loehmann’s argued the breached term of the contract was unconscionable. The majority
is mistaken as unconscionability was not the dispute in Loehmann’s. The Arizona
Supreme Court characterized the issue before it as follows: “The trial court ruled
that Loehmann’s delay in paying a common area charge was a trivial breach of its lease
and therefore refused to permit the landlord, Foundation Development Corporation
(Foundation), to re-enter and take possession of the leased premises. The court of
appeals reversed. We granted review to clarify the law dealing with triviality of breach
as a defense to a forfeiture of a tenant’s interest in a commercial lease. [Citation.]”
(Loehmann’s, supra, 163 Ariz. at p. 439.)3
In pertinent part, the Arizona Supreme Court summed up its holding as follows:
“[W]e decline to hold that any breach, no matter how trivial or insignificant, can justify a
forfeiture. Nor do we believe such a rule could long survive. Trivial or not, the delay in
paying the rent here was at most three days. What if the breach had been three hours
instead of three days or the check had been lost in the mail and came at three minutes
after midnight? The questions almost answer themselves. Therefore, we now join the
overwhelming majority of jurisdictions that hold the landlord’s right to terminate is not
unlimited. We believe a court’s decision to permit termination must be tempered by
notions of equity and common sense. We thus hold a forfeiture for a trivial or immaterial
breach of a commercial lease should not be enforced.” (Loehmann’s, supra, 163 Ariz. at
pp. 445-446.)
It is true that, in identifying the “[s]tandard for [e]valuating the [t]riviality of a
[b]reach,” Loehmann’s stated, “we believe a material provision of a lease may be
breached in such a trivial manner that to enforce a forfeiture would be unconscionable

Other Sections in This Document (72)

Full Text