The Syufy Case

Legal Research
Name;
Institutional Affiliation;
Date;
The Syufy Case
Facts;
A case holding Syufy Enterprises, L.P. v. City of Oakland, 104 Cal. App. 4th 869 (2002), The owner of a tenement, gave its tenant (Syufy) the permission to partition one of its premises to a subtenant. The owner of the property and the sub landlord agreed to amend the lease that allowed Syufy Enterprises to renovate the subleased premises. Upon execution of the sublease between the Sub landlord and Syufy Enterprises, the company considerably allocated its funds towards the construction of a movie theater on the premise. Within a period, the company again remodeled the premises. However, this did not appear well with the Master Landlord, a factor that brought disputes since the sub landlord had defaulted the master lease.
Syufy received copies of the notices in relation to the sub landlord’s default since the Master Landlord intended not to disrupt its tenancy Syufy Enterprises, L.P. (c.o.b. Syufy Sales), [2002] O.J. No. 2160 (H.C.J.). The Master Landlord then moved to Court and filed an unlawful detainers action against the sub landlord. The Sub landlord on the other hand filed a bankruptcy protection under Chapter 11 of the protection acts. In the bankruptcy proceedings the Trustee to the sub landlord filed a motion that assumed the master lease in which the court considered the contract null and void under the conditions that transpired during the unlawful detainer action, a factor that saw the sub landlord ordered to vacate the premises (See Syufy Enterprises, L.P. v. City of Oakland, 104 Cal. App. 4th 869 (2002). Upon the assumption and failure to follow the master lease amounted to a deemed rejection of the bankruptcy proceeding.
Syufy was unaware of the bankruptcy state of the sub landlord and was informed about this in a letter from the Master Landlord of the court’s order that required the sub landlord to vacate the facility. The master lease according to the Landlord was also terminated, and the Master Landlord allowed Syufy to occupy the premises on a month-to-month basis. However, the Master Landlord failed to prepare the new lease, a factor that saw the Enterprise rely on the Master Landlords word.
After two years, the Master Landlord decided to sell the facility and delivered an order that ordered Syufy to vacate the premise. In response to this, the company filed a suit against the Master Landlord for redress and damages as stated in (section 8A (2) (a) of the Tenancies and Distress for Rent Act). On the other hand, the Master Landlord also filed a petition that sought the adjudication of whether the sub landlord deemed the rejection of the master lease in the earlier proceedings. The court then ruled in favor of the Master Landlord and dismissed the complaints of the Company.
Syufy appealed again to California’s Court of Appeal under the Code provides, in Section 362(b) (22), which critically looked at the rationales whether Syufy had a right to retain its tenancy despite the rejection that had been deemed of the master lease in bankruptcy. The analysis of the Court of Appeal hinged on the principles of fe...