{ "id": 8413203, "name": "CHARLOTTE EASTLAND MALL, LLC, f/k/a EASTLAND MALL LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Plaintiff v. SOLE SURVIVOR, INC. d/b/a HEEL SEW QUIK, MICHAEL R. JOHNSON, and SARAH A. JOHNSON, Defendants", "name_abbreviation": "Charlotte Eastland Mall, LLC v. Sole Survivor, Inc.", "decision_date": "2004-10-19", "docket_number": "No. COA03-1422", "first_page": "659", "last_page": "664", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "166 N.C. App. 659" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.", "id": 14983, "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "394 S.E.2d 824", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1990, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "830" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "100 N.C. App. 82", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8526332 ], "year": 1990, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "92" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/100/0082-01" ] }, { "cite": "83 S.E. 334", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "year": 1914, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "334" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "167 N.C. 197", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11271930 ], "year": 1914, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "198" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/167/0197-01" ] }, { "cite": "520 S.E.2d 122", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1999, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "126-27", "parenthetical": "citations omitted" }, { "page": "126" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "135 N.C. App. 260", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11240135 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1999, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "267", "parenthetical": "citations omitted" }, { "page": "266" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/135/0260-01" ] }, { "cite": "473 S.E.2d 373", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "375" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "123 N.C. App. 511", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11914039 ], "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "514" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/123/0511-01" ] }, { "cite": "516 S.E.2d 879", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1999, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "882" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "134 N.C. App. 116", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11143188 ], "year": 1999, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "120" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/134/0116-01" ] }, { "cite": "544 S.E.2d 14", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "16", "parenthetical": "citing Howard v. Oakwood Homes Corp., 134 N.C. App. 116, 120, 516 S.E.2d 879, 882 (1999), and quoting Charlotte Housing Authority v. Fleming, 123 N.C. App. 511, 514, 473 S.E.2d 373, 375 (1996)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "142 N.C. App. 675", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 9443180 ], "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "678", "parenthetical": "citing Howard v. Oakwood Homes Corp., 134 N.C. App. 116, 120, 516 S.E.2d 879, 882 (1999), and quoting Charlotte Housing Authority v. Fleming, 123 N.C. App. 511, 514, 473 S.E.2d 373, 375 (1996)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/142/0675-01" ] }, { "cite": "396 S.E.2d 327", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1990, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "330" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "100 N.C. App. 349", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8526800 ], "year": 1990, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "354" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/100/0349-01" ] }, { "cite": "581 S.E.2d 111", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2003, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "115", "parenthetical": "citing Martin v. Ray Lackey Enterprises, 100 N.C. App. 349, 354, 396 S.E.2d 327, 330 (1990)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "158 N.C. App. 414", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 9187917 ], "year": 2003, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "418", "parenthetical": "citing Martin v. Ray Lackey Enterprises, 100 N.C. App. 349, 354, 396 S.E.2d 327, 330 (1990)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/158/0414-01" ] }, { "cite": "534 S.E.2d 660", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "664" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "139 N.C. App. 778", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 9497849 ], "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "784" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/139/0778-01" ] }, { "cite": "538 S.E.2d 629", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "630", "parenthetical": "quoting Gaunt v. Pittaway, 139 N.C. App. 778, 784, 534 S.E.2d 660, 664 (2000)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "140 N.C. App. 737", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 12134800 ], "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "738", "parenthetical": "quoting Gaunt v. Pittaway, 139 N.C. App. 778, 784, 534 S.E.2d 660, 664 (2000)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/140/0737-01" ] }, { "cite": "504 S.E.2d 574", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "577" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "130 N.C. App. 729", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11470258 ], "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "733" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/130/0729-01" ] }, { "cite": "329 S.E.2d 350", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "353" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "313 N.C. 488", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4725743 ], "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "491" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/313/0488-01" ] }, { "cite": "186 S.E.2d 897", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1972, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "901" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "280 N.C. 513", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8572831 ], "year": 1972, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "518" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/280/0513-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 641, "char_count": 11838, "ocr_confidence": 0.731, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.530072223108123e-07, "percentile": 0.8123998735061387 }, "sha256": "2e9e27d9f161b7d40c5da754e7aa82fa22922384514141951e8ead2cec9dc8a3", "simhash": "1:474f5222bc3f3ace", "word_count": 1899 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:02:59.875915+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges GEER and THORNBURG concur." ], "parties": [ "CHARLOTTE EASTLAND MALL, LLC, f/k/a EASTLAND MALL LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Plaintiff v. SOLE SURVIVOR, INC. d/b/a HEEL SEW QUIK, MICHAEL R. JOHNSON, and SARAH A. JOHNSON, Defendants" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "LEVINSON, Judge.\nDefendants, Sole Survivor, Inc., Michael Johnson, and Sarah Johnson, appeal from an order of summary judgment entered in favor of plaintiff, Charlotte Eastland Mall (Eastland). We affirm.\nThe pertinent facts may be summarized as follows: Eastland is a shopping mall in Charlotte, North Carolina. On 14 February 1994 defendant Sole Survivor signed a ten year lease with Eastland for the operation of a tailoring and shoe repair business at the mall. The lease required Sole Survivor to pay monthly rent in a set amount, as well as additional rent in an amount calculated as a percentage of Sole Survivor\u2019s gross sales. Defendants Michael and Sarah Johnson also signed a separate agreement to act as sureties on the lease. In February 2002, after eight years of the ten year lease had elapsed, the defendants vacated the leased premises at Eastland, and thereafter ceased to pay rent.\nOn 29 October 2002 plaintiff filed suit against defendants, alleging that they had defaulted on the lease. Plaintiff sought $96,275.48 in \u25a0rent owed, as well as late charges, interest, attorney\u2019s fees, and court costs. In their answer, defendants asserted as an affirmative defense that plaintiff \u201cfailed to maintain a safe environment for the corporate defendant and its customers thereby rendering the terms of the lease and any guaranty executed in this matter null and void.\u201d On 11 June 2003 plaintiff moved for summary judgment. Following a hearing, the trial court on 30 July 2003 granted summary judgment in favor of plaintiff. From this order, defendants appeal.\nStandard of Review\nDefendants appeal from an order for summary judgment. Summary judgment is appropriate if \u201cthe pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that any party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.\u201d N.C.G.S. \u00a7 1A-1, Rule 56(c) (2003). \u201cAn issue is material if the facts alleged would constitute a legal defense, or would affect the result of the action, or if its resolution would prevent the party against whom it is resolved from prevailing in the action.\u201d Koontz v. City of Winston-Salem, 280 N.C. 513, 518, 186 S.E.2d 897, 901 (1972). \u201c[T]he party moving for summary judgment ultimately has the burden of establishing the lack of any triable issue of fact.\u201d Pembee Mfg. Corp. v. Cape Fear Constr. Co., 313 N.C. 488, 491, 329 S.E.2d 350, 353 (1985). Also, \u201cevidence presented by the parties must be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-movant.\u201d Bruce-Terminix Co. v. Zurich Ins. Co., 130 N.C. App. 729, 733, 504 S.E.2d 574, 577 (1998). Thus, on appeal:\nIt is well established that the standard of review of the grant of a motion for summary judgment requires a two-part analysis of whether, \u2018(1) the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact; and (2) the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.\u2019\nVon Viczay v. Thoms, 140 N.C. App. 737, 738, 538 S.E.2d 629, 630 (2000) (quoting Gaunt v. Pittaway, 139 N.C. App. 778, 784, 534 S.E.2d 660, 664 (2000)).\nDefendants argue that the trial court erred by granting summary judgment for plaintiffs on the grounds that \u201c[t]here was a material issue of fact regarding whether Plaintiffs failure to provide adequate security negated Defendants\u2019 obligation to pay rent[.]\u201d Defendants argue that criminal incidents occurring at Eastland discouraged defendants\u2019 customers, gave the mall a bad reputation, and led to the departure of major \u201canchor\u201d stores. They assert that plaintiff\u2019s failure to provide adequate security made their continued occupancy untenable, resulting in their \u201cconstructive eviction.\u201d Defendants further contend that plaintiff\u2019s failure to provide security was a breach of its duty to provide a \u201csafe environment\u201d, an explicit breach of plaintiff\u2019s duties under the lease, and a breach of the implied covenant of \u201cquiet enjoyment.\u201d On this basis, defendants assert that plaintiff\u2019s alleged breach of duty served to relieve defendants of their obligations under the lease, including their obligation to pay rent. We disagree.\nIn support of their argument, defendants submitted affidavits and exhibits tending to show that: (1) in July 1994 Sole Survivor was the victim of an armed robbery; (2) during the eight years defendants leased space at Eastland, the police received many reports of criminal activity at Eastland; (3) during the same time period, several businesses vacated Eastland; and (4) Eastland had been made aware of the problem of criminal activity occurring at the mall. However, the relevance of this evidence is predicated upon defendants\u2019 assertion that plaintiff owes a duty to defendants to \u201cprovide adequate security.\u201d Accordingly, we next consider defendants\u2019 various arguments on this issue.\nDefendants argue first that plaintiff is required by the terms of the lease to provide security for the common areas of Eastland mall. \u201c[T]he provisions of a lease are interpreted according to general principles of contract law.\u201d Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Ingles Mkts., Inc., 158 N.C. App. 414, 418, 581 S.E.2d 111, 115 (2003) (citing Martin v. Ray Lackey Enterprises, 100 N.C. App. 349, 354, 396 S.E.2d 327, 330 (1990)). \u201cWhere the language of a contract is clear, the contract must be interpreted as written. As with contracts, the rule of interpretation for leases is that a word in a lease \u2018should be given its natural and ordinary meaning.\u2019 \u201d Southpark Mall Ltd. Part. v. CLT Food Mgmt., Inc., 142 N.C. App. 675, 678, 544 S.E.2d 14, 16 (2001) (citing Howard v. Oakwood Homes Corp., 134 N.C. App. 116, 120, 516 S.E.2d 879, 882 (1999), and quoting Charlotte Housing Authority v. Fleming, 123 N.C. App. 511, 514, 473 S.E.2d 373, 375 (1996)). In the instant case, the section of the lease upon which defendants rely states that:\n9.(d) Security. Landlord may, from time to time and to the extent it deems appropriate in its sole discretion, determine whether to supply security services in the Common Areas and additional traffic control for the Shopping Center. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Lease, Landlord shall not be liable for any loss or damages suffered by Tenant ... by failure to supply such services [.] ... It is specifically understood and agreed that, by supplying such services, Landlord shall not be deemed to relieve Tenant of its duty to maintain security within the Demised Premises nor of its performance of the terms, covenants and conditions of this lease.\n(emphasis added). We conclude that the pertinent terms of the lease contradict defendants\u2019 argument. The lease clearly states, not that plaintiff is obligated to provide security, but that plaintiff may provide security in its sole discretion. Indeed, the lease expressly states that plaintiff \u201cshall not be hable for any loss or damages suffered by Tenant\u201d caused by plaintiff\u2019s \u201cfailure to supply such services.\u201d Moreover, this paragraph explicitly provides that plaintiff\u2019s provision of security services \u201cshall not be deemed to relieve Tenant of its duty to maintain security within the Demised Premises nor of its performance of the terms, covenants, and conditions of this lease.\u201d We conclude that the terms of the lease fail to support defendants\u2019 claim that plaintiff owed defendants a duty to provide \u201cadequate security.\u201d\nDefendants also argue that plaintiff\u2019s failure to provide more security at Eastland was a breach of the implied covenant of \u201cquiet enjoyment.\u201d \u201cUnder North Carolina law,... a lease carries an implied warranty that the tenant will have quiet and peaceable possession of the leased premises during the term of the lease[,] . . . standing] for the principle that a landlord breaches the implied covenant of quiet enjoyment when he constructively evicts the tenant.\u201d K & S Enters. v. Kennedy Office Supply Co., 135 N.C. App. 260, 267, 520 S.E.2d 122, 126-27 (1999) (citations omitted). However, it is long-settled that \u201c[t]he covenant of quiet enjoyment. . . does not extend to the acts of trespassers and wrongdoersf.]\u201d Huggins v. Waters, 167 N.C. 197, 198, 83 S.E. 334, 334 (1914). Defendants do not cite any cases in support of the proposition that the implied covenant of quiet enjoyment imposes upon plaintiff-landlord the duty to a commercial tenant to prevent criminal acts by third parties, and we find none.\nDefendants also argue that the plaintiff\u2019s failure to take measures to reduce crime at Eastland led to their \u201cconstructive eviction.\u201d This argument has no merit.\nConstructive eviction occurs when an act of a landlord deprives his tenant of \u2018that beneficial enjoyment of the premises to which he is entitled under his lease,\u2019 causing his tenant to abandon them. In other words, constructive eviction takes place when a landlord\u2019s breach of duty under the lease renders the premises untenable.\nK & S Enters., 135 N.C. App. at 266, 520 S.E.2d at 126 (quoting Marina Food Assoc., Inc. v. Marina Restaurant, Inc., 100 N.C. App. 82, 92, 394 S.E.2d 824, 830 (1990)) (emphasis added). In the instant case, defendants have failed to show that plaintiff breached any duty under the lease.\nWe conclude that the terms of the lease do not require plaintiff to provide \u201cadequate security.\u201d Nor have defendants presented any statutory or common law basis upon which to impose upon defendant landlord a duty to provide \u201cadequate security\u201d for the benefit of its commercial tenants. This assignment of error is overruled.\nDefendants also argue that the trial court erred in its calculation of the amount of damages. However, defendants did not assign this as error, and thus have not properly preserved this issue for appellate review. \u201c[T]he scope of review on appeal is confined to a consideration of those assignments of error set out in the record on appeal[.]\u201d N.C R. App. P. 10(a). This argument is dismissed.\nFor the reasons discussed above we conclude that the trial court\u2019s order for summary judgment should be\nAffirmed.\nJudges GEER and THORNBURG concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "LEVINSON, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Shuford, Hunter & Brown, P.A., by G. Martin Hunter, for plaintiff-appellee.", "Andresen, Vann & Butler, by Christopher M. Vann, for defendant-appellants." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "CHARLOTTE EASTLAND MALL, LLC, f/k/a EASTLAND MALL LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Plaintiff v. SOLE SURVIVOR, INC. d/b/a HEEL SEW QUIK, MICHAEL R. JOHNSON, and SARAH A. JOHNSON, Defendants\nNo. COA03-1422\n(Filed 19 October 2004)\n1. Landlord and Tenant\u2014 mall security \u2014 no duty under lease\nThe terms of the parties\u2019 lease contradicted defendants\u2019 claim that plaintiff owed defendants a duty to provide adequate mall security, and summary judgment was correctly granted for plaintiff on an action alleging default on a lease.\n2. Landlord and Tenant\u2014 implied covenant of quiet enjoyment \u2014 criminal acts by third parties\nThe implied covenant of quiet enjoyment does not extend to the acts of trespassers and wrongdoers and does not impose upon the landlord the duty to prevent criminal acts by third parties. Summary judgment was correctly granted for plaintiff-landlord in an action alleging that defendants defaulted under their lease.\n3. Landlord and Tenant\u2014 constructive eviction \u2014 lack of security\nConstructive eviction occurs when a landlord\u2019s breach of duty under the lease renders the premises untenable; here, the lease did not require plaintiff to provide mall security, defendants did not present any statutory or common law basis upon which to impose that duty, and summary judgment was correctly granted for -plaintiff in an action for alleging that defendants defaulted under their lease.\nAppeal by defendants from judgment entered 30 July 2003 by Judge Timothy S. Kincaid in Mecklenburg County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 26 August 2004.\nShuford, Hunter & Brown, P.A., by G. Martin Hunter, for plaintiff-appellee.\nAndresen, Vann & Butler, by Christopher M. Vann, for defendant-appellants." }, "file_name": "0659-01", "first_page_order": 689, "last_page_order": 694 }