Owner Wasn't Unjustly Enriched by Square Footage Error

July 31, 2003

A lease said that tenant rented 1,200 square feet of space in a shopping center and must pay minimum rent at $7 per square foot. The lease was later amended twice, to extend the term, although neither amendment mentioned the square footage of the space. After the first lease amendment, a new owner bought the center. The tenant measured the space before it moved out, and discovered that the space was 220 feet smaller than was stated in the lease.

A lease said that tenant rented 1,200 square feet of space in a shopping center and must pay minimum rent at $7 per square foot. The lease was later amended twice, to extend the term, although neither amendment mentioned the square footage of the space. After the first lease amendment, a new owner bought the center. The tenant measured the space before it moved out, and discovered that the space was 220 feet smaller than was stated in the lease. The tenant sued the owner for “unjust enrichment” (the legal principle that a person isn't allowed to unjustly enrich himself at the expense of someone else).

A Missouri appeals court found that the owner wasn't unjustly enriched by keeping the rent for the missing 220 square feet. The court said that the tenant failed to show bad conduct on the owner's part, especially since: The owner wasn't a party to the original lease; when the owner bought the center, the amended lease “referred only to a ‘Base Rental,’ rather than to square footage”; the owner was merely a “passive beneficiary” of the prior owner's square footage error; and the tenant couldn't show that the rent charged for the space was unreasonable [S & J, Inc. v. McLoud & Co., LLC].

More like this