Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Moura v. Luongo

November 8, 2007

CARLOS MOURA AND SIMAO PEREIRA, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS,
v.
VINCENT LUONGO, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.



On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Essex County, Docket No. C-0027-05.

Per curiam.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

Submitted September 18, 2007

Before Judges Fuentes and Chambers.

Plaintiffs, Carlos Moura and Simao Pereira, appeal from the judgment of the Chancery Division, General Equity Part, dismissing their cause of action for enforcement of an alleged unilateral option to purchase real property contained in a commercial lease agreement. The court reached its decision after considering the evidence presented by the parties in a bench trial.

It is undisputed that the lease contained a paragraph which provided plaintiffs with a right of first refusal to purchase defendant's property for $110,000. Plaintiffs argued before the trial court that a clause in this paragraph also gave them a unilateral option to purchase the property after the expiration of the lease. Defendant argued that this interpretation is erroneous and the lease was only intended to provide a right of first refusal.

In deciding in defendant's favor, the trial judge acknowledged the ambiguity in the paragraph at issue. Applying well-settled principles of contract interpretation, the judge resolved the ambiguity against the drafter, in this case plaintiffs, and found that the parties intended to create only a right of first refusal. After reviewing the record, and in light of prevailing legal standards, we agree with the trial court and affirm.

These are the salient facts. Plaintiffs own the Spanish Manor Restaurant and several surrounding properties which border on Defendant's property at 23 Rose Avenue in Newark. On June 30, 1997, counsel for defendant wrote a letter to plaintiff's counsel enumerating several proposed modifications to a commercial lease agreement involving defendant's property at 23 Rose Avenue in Newark. Specifically, defendant made the following proposal as to paragraph 30:

The Landlord and Tenant agree that in addition to the terms and conditions herein contained that Tenant shall also have the right of first refusal to purchase the property in which the rental space occupies a portion and commonly known as 23 Rose Avenue, City OF Newark, County of Essex, New Jersey, for the purchase price OF ONE HUNDRED TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS ($110,000.00).

Tenant shall have 14 days in which to exercise his right hereunder from the date that notice is served upon Tenant. If the Tenant exercises his rights under this paragraph all Rents paid in consideration of this Lease shall be applied to the purchase price and same shall be reduced by that amount. Property shall be sold in AS IS condition. If Tenant elects to exercise his rights under this paragraph he must so notify the Landlord within the FOURTEEN (14) days referred to herein. (Emphasis added).

On August 7, 1997, plaintiff's counsel responded, indicating, in pertinent part, that the amendment to paragraph 30 was acceptable, although a thirty day response and notification period would be preferable. The final version of paragraph 30 read as follows:

Right of Tenant to Purchase. The Landlord and Tenant agree that in addition to the terms and conditions herein contained that Tenant shall also have the right of first refusal to purchase the property, in which the rental space occupies a portion, commonly known as 23 Rose Avenue, Newark, NJ for the purchase price of $110,000.00. If Tenant exercises his rights under this paragraph all Rent paid in consideration of this Lease shall be applied to the purchase price and same shall be reduced by that amount. If Tenant elects to exercise his rights under this paragraph he must so notify the Landlord within thirty days from the date written confirmation of a bona fide offer is received from the Landlord. In the alternative, if no offers are made Tenant must so notify the Landlord of his intention to exercise this option within thirty days prior to the expiration of this lease. (Emphasis added).

The parties finally reached an agreement on the remaining issues and entered into a commercial lease for three years, commencing on May 1, 1997, and ending on April 30, 2000, for a $250 monthly rent.

At trial, defendant testified that based on discussions he had with his attorney prior to signing the lease, he understood that the lease only gave plaintiffs a right of first refusal, not a unilateral option to purchase the property. The $110,000 purchase price was just a number defendant came up with in the event that he wanted to sell the property. According to defendant, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.