Lease Amendment Wasn't Product of Undue Influence

A tenant's attorney asked the owner, who was 80 years old, to amend the tenant's lease to say that the tenant could assign its lease to a bank. The owner told the tenant's attorney to contact her attorney, which she did. But the owner later called the tenant's attorney and said she wanted to deal with her directly. The owner and the tenant's attorney met to discuss changes the owner wanted to make to the proposed lease amendment. The owner's attorney then contacted the tenant's attorney and told her to discuss the amendment with him and not the owner. Again, the owner called the tenant's attorney and said she wanted to deal directly with her. The tenant's attorney sent the owner the revised amendment, which included the owner's changes, and a letter saying the owner wanted to deal directly with the tenant's attorney. The owner signed both the amendment and the letter. The owner later sued the tenant and asked the court to rescind the amendment on the grounds that it was the product of undue influence by the tenant's attorney.

A Virginia appeals court ruled that the lease amendment wasn't the product of undue influence, so it couldn't be rescinded. The owner's claim was invalid because there was no evidence that she had a “great weakness of mind,” the court said. The owner had successfully negotiated changes to the proposed amendment and she'd initiated contact with the tenant's attorney twice, the court noted. Also, the amendment's terms were reasonable, further proving that the amendment wasn't a product of undue influence [Friendly Ice Cream Corp. v. Beckner].