Logourl black
From our private database of 14,100+ case briefs...

Mullendore Theatres, Inc. v. Growth Realty Investors Co.

Court of Appeals of Washington
691 P.2d 970 (1984)


Facts

In 1969, Conner Theatres Corporation (Conner) entered a 10-year lease that required Connor to pay a $22,500 security deposit to the landlord of the property. The lease provided that: (1) the landlord could keep the security deposit as damages if Conner defaulted in the performance of the lease; (2) if Conner did not default, the landlord would return the security deposit to Conner when the lease expired in 1979; and (3) all covenants in the lease ran with the land. Conner assigned the lease to Mullendore Theatres, Inc. (Mullendore) (plaintiff) in 1974. The deposit was reduced to $6,000 at the time of the assignment. Prior to the assignment, the landlord transferred the property to North Pacific World Trade Center, Ltd. (North Pacific). In 1975, North Pacific defaulted on a note and deed of trust. Growth Realty Investors Co. (GRIC) (defendant) acquired the property and sold it to the City of Tacoma (city). GRIC agreed to indemnify the city for any liability it might have for the $6,000 deposit. Mullendore negotiated a new lease with the city in 1980 and agreed to release the city from any claims Mullendore had against it. However, Mullendore reserved its claims against any other potentially liable party and sued GRIC for the return of the security deposit. The trial court found that the 1969 lease’s covenant to refund the deposit ran with the land and that GRIC was bound through the indemnification clause in its agreement with the city. On appeal, GRIC claimed that: (1) the covenant to return the deposit did not run with the land, and (2) Mullendore’s release of the city extinguished any obligation that GRIC might have assumed.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Worswick, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A "yes" or "no" answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 222,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,100 briefs, keyed to 189 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.