The Leasing Hotline

An appellate court will not substitute its judgment for that of a jury where submission of questions to the jury was proper and where there is sufficient evidence to support the jury's findings. Samuel v. KTVU Partnership, No. 08-02-00010-CV, Tex.Ct. App., Eighth Dist., El Paso, August 15, 2003.

Robert Samuel and KTVU entered into a 20-year lease agreement wherein KTVU leased an office building with the intent to operate a television station at that location. The lease provided that Samuel was responsible for providing space in front of the building for satellite dishes and two microwave dishes on the roof. Samuel was also required to maintain the roof and was required to install a new roof by April 1, 1994. On September 10, 1997, KTVU filed a lawsuit against Samuel, alleging breach of contract under the lease and sought: 1) a declaratory judgment that under the lease it was permitted to install additional satellite dishes as needed; and 2) damages because Samuel failed to install a new roof properly or care for the existing roof. After a jury trial, the jury found that at the time the lease was signed, both parties did not intend that the tenant was limited to the number of satellite dishes stated in the lease and assessed damages at $50,000 for Samuel's failure to comply with the roof-related provisions of the lease. Samuel appealed both issues. With regard to the issue of the number of satellite dishes, Samuel argued that the lease was not ambiguous, and, if it was, the trial court never entered such a ruling. Therefore, Samuel argued that the submission of that question to the jury was improper. The appellate court disagreed and upheld the jury findings. It noted it would not disturb a jury finding if evidence existed to support that finding, even if it disagreed with the jury's conclusion. It held that the lease was ambiguous on its face because it only specified the number of satellites to be installed at the initiation of the lease. It was silent on the issue of additional satellites. Moreover, it was established during the trial that prior to signing the lease, the parties discussed the necessity of satellite dishes to run a television station and that the constantly changing technology would cause the structure and size of the satellite dishes to change over the course of the 20-year lease. The appellate court further ruled it was not required of the trial court to make an express finding of ambiguity in the lease. It considered that the interpretation of a contract is a fact question for the jury, and the decision of the trial court to submit a question regarding the interpretation of the contract to the jury was sufficient to infer that the trial court believed the lease to be ambiguous. With regard to the installation of the new roof, the appellate court held that the facts established during the trial were sufficient to support a jury finding that Samuel failed to maintain and install a new roof as provided in the lease, and the sum of $50,000 was also supported by the evidence at trial.