What Happened: A nonprofit landlord leased property to a for-profit utility to operate a solar-powered electric-generating facility. The lease required the tenant to:
The town raised the real estate taxes upon learning of the transaction. The landlord demanded that the tenant pay the increase. After losing in Superior Court, the landlord appealed.
Ruling: The Massachusetts court upheld the lower court’s judgment in the tenant’s favor.
Reasoning: The real estate tax increase didn’t “stem” from any of the contingencies listed in the clause. It occurred because of the property’s transfer from a non-profit to a for-profit utility. Moreover, it occurred two months before the parties even executed the lease. The lease language was clear and unambiguous, said the court. Had the parties intended “to require the plaintiff to pay real estate taxes imposed on the property, it would have been a simple matter to include language in the lease expressly saying so.”