Tippecanoe Associates II LLC v. Kimco Lafayette 671, Inc.
Indiana Supreme Court
829 N.E.2d 512 (2005)
- Written by Robert Cane, JD
Facts
Kroger Company (Kroger), a grocery store, leased a commercial space in the Sagamore shopping center, which was owned by SES Development Company (SES). Kroger’s lease included a restrictive covenant prohibiting SES from leasing space within the Sagamore shopping center to another grocery store. Eventually, Kroger subleased its space in the Sagamore shopping center to Pay Less Super Markets, Inc. (Pay Less). Pay Less subleased the space to an appliance dealer, so the space was no longer used as a grocery store. Tippecanoe Associates II, LLC (Tippecanoe) (defendant), which was owned by the owners of Pay Less, later became the holder of the lease interest that was originally held by Kroger and transferred to Pay Less. Kimco Lafayette 671, Inc. (Kimco) later became the owner of the Sagamore shopping center. At some point, Kimco sought to lease a different vacant commercial space within the Sagamore shopping center to a grocery store. Tippecanoe sought to enforce the restrictive covenant in the lease. Consequently, Kimco filed suit against Tippecanoe, requesting a declaration that the restrictive covenant was unenforceable. The trial court found that the restrictive covenant was unenforceable because the circumstances in and around the Sagamore shopping center had changed so much that the original purpose of the covenant could not be effected. The appellate court reversed the trial court’s decision. Kimco appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Boehm, J.)
Dissent (Shepard, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.