CASCADE CAR WASH, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
LAURENT WATCH CO., INC., APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the bankruptcy referee's orders were not clearly erroneous, affirming Laurent Watch Co.'s leasehold interest and the classification of certain structures as fixtures.
Cascade Car Wash appealed bankruptcy referee orders affirming Laurent Watch Co.'s leasehold interest and fixtures. Cascade argued the lease was forfei…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Lease Forfeiture cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Cascade Car Wash, Inc. appeals from a decision of the United States District Court affirming three orders of a Referee in Bankruptcy entered in favor of Laurent Watch Co., Inc., the petitioner in a proceeding under Chapter XI of the Bankruptcy Act (11 U.S.C. §§ 701-799). We affirm.
Cascade’s principal challenge is to an order of August 7, 1968 in which the Referee found that Laurent, as the as-signee of a written sublease which had been neither terminated nor forfeited, had a continuing and valuable leasehold interest in certain premises and that Cascade should be restrained from attempting to oust Laurent from possession. Cascade contends that the lease was forfeited when Laurent failed to cure its default in payment of the May, 1968 rental installment within the statutory three-day-notice period. Cal.Civ. Code, § 791.
We have reviewed the record and conclude that the Referee’s finding that the lease was not forfeited is not clearly erroneous. Rule 52(a), F.R. Civ.P. The lease documents in question clearly show successive assignments of a written sublease and not as Cascade argues, a series of successive subleases. The written sublease expressly provides for fifteen days notice in the event of a default, which was not given. In addition, there is ample evidence in the record to support the Referee’s finding that Laurent made a timely tender of the May rental installment which was improperly rejected by Cascade.
Cascade also attacks an order of August 21, 1968 in which the Referee found that certain buildings and structures affixed to the land were a part of Laurent’s leasehold interest. Whether or not an object annexed to real property is a fixture is a question of fact. R. Barcroft & Sons Co. v. Cullen, 1933, 217 Cal. 708, 711, 20 P. 2d 665. The record supports the Referee’s determination.
Cascade’s final contention that the Referee had no jurisdiction to modify his order of August 7, 1968, is without merit.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Union Bank v. Blum, 460 F.2d 197 (9th Cir. 1972)
-
In re First Wis. Nat'l Bank OF Milwaukee v. The Fed. Land Bank OF ST. Paul, 849 F.2d 284 (7th Cir. 1988)