Centerline Investment Co. v. Tri-Cor Industries, Inc., 80 S.W.3d 499 (2002)

Citation: Centerline Investment Co. v. Tri-Cor Industries, Inc., 80 S.W.3d 499 (2002)
Parent Document: Centerline Investment Co. v. Tri-Cor Industries, Inc., 80 S.W.3d 499 (2002)
Jurisdiction: Missouri (state)
Effective Date: 2002-07-23
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/5274892/centerline-investment-co-v-tri-... ↗

Full Text

1,327 chars

After Tri-Cor announced that it would be vacating its premises Centerline opted not to terminate the lease and to re-let the property as “the agent of and for the account of Tenant..-..” Under this option, the express terms of the lease require Centerline to apply “the- rents received” from Alcide to the enumerated expenses, costs and rent due under Tri-Cor’s lease. The lease makes no exception for rents received in excess of the amount TriCor was to pay under the lease. It says simply “the rents received.” Given that property values tend to increase with time, it was clearly foreseeable that if Tri-Cor defaulted a subsequent tenant might pay a higher rent than Tri-Cor. Centerline could have insisted upon an express provision in the lease granting it any excess in rent received from a sublessee, but it did not. Centerline also could have terminated its lease with Tri-Cor and collected this additional rent on its own accord, but instead elected “to relet ... the Premises as the agent of and for the account of Tenant .” (emphasis added). Citing C & M Developers, Inc. v. Berbiglia, Inc., 585 *505S.W.2d 176 (Mo.App. W.D.1979), Center-line now asks the court to write that provision for it, as a matter of law, on the ground that it would be “inequitable” to allow Tri-Cor to “profit” from defaulting on its lease.

Other Sections in This Document (31)

Full Text