ILNews

Roche owes Marsh Supermarkets $18M for breaking sublease

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals upheld judgment Monday in favor of Marsh Supermarkets LLC on its complaint alleging that Roche breached a contract to sublease space in the Fishers building that houses Marsh’s headquarters.

Marsh is a subsidiary of MSI Crosspoint Indianapolis Grocery LLC, which owns the building and land that Marsh leases for its headquarters. The property is mortgaged with Bank of America, and the lease allows for Marsh to sublease the building.

Roche Diagnostics Corp. executed a sublease with Marsh to rent space in the building in March 2008. The lease would begin April 1 and expire Nov. 21, 2026, with rent payments to begin Jan. 1, 2009.

The agreement contained a subtenant recognition agreement and a subordination, non-disturbance and attornment agreement. The parties were required to cooperate in obtaining these two documents. The original sublease said both must be delivered to Roche by April 25, 2008; if not, Roche could terminate the lease on or before May 15.

This case hinges on the SNDA. Roche originally rejected Marsh’s proposed draft of the SNDA, in which Bank of America had removed Roche’s 12-month liability limit. Two extension letters were executed, pushing back the deadline that the SNDA had to be obtained to May 30. Roche wanted the liability limit in the SNDA. On May 29, Roche decided it would not sublease the building and sent a letter overnight to Marsh. When Marsh received the letter, it contacted the bank and got the SNDA with the 12-month liability limit. The SNDA was hand delivered to Roche at 4:57 p.m. on May 30.

After Roche declined to participate in the lease, Marsh sued. Both parties moved for summary judgment, and the trial court denied both motions. At a bench trial, Hamilton Superior Judge William J. Hughes ruled in favor of Marsh, finding Roche’s failure to pay rent under the sublease was more than $47 million. Hughes set off that amount based on a new sublease Marsh obtained with First Advantage Background Services Corp. and found Roche owed $18,188,933.

In Roche Diagnostics Operations, Inc. v. Marsh Supermarkets, LLC, 29A02-1201-PL-4, Judges Patricia Riley and L. Mark Bailey affirmed in favor of Marsh. Roche challenged the denial of its motion for summary judgment, but the majority held that the extensions entered into contain the parties’ clear intent for Roche to have its termination option effective only upon a failure to deliver a compliant SNDA by May 30, 2008. The language of the extensions modified Roche’s unilateral option to terminate the sublease under the original agreement.

Regarding the judgment from the bench trial, the judges noted that Roche’s challenge is essentially the same as its argument on the denial of its motion for summary judgment. The trial court correctly interpreted that the original agreement was modified by the extensions, Riley wrote. They also affirmed that Roche breached its duty to cooperate by not accepting the May 30 SNDA.

Also, based on the language of the original agreement, Hughes didn’t err in determining Roche is on the hook for the $18 million calculated based on the entire length of the sublease for breaking it.

Judge Terry Crone dissented, believing the extension letters didn’t nullify Roche’s bargained-for right to terminate the sublease after April 25. He wrote that Roche terminated the sublease before Marsh delivered the SNDA, therefore, Roche wasn’t in default and its damages should be limited to up to Dec. 31, 2013, based on the sublease.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT