In September 2002, a Gwinnett County jury awarded Ralph Johnston and his corporation, Lucky Breaks, Inc., $150,000 in damages on Johnston’s breach of lease claim against Coordinated Properties, Inc.1 Coordinated Properties filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict “judgment n.o.v.” or, in the alternative, a new trial. The trial court denied the motion, and Coordinated Properties appeals, contending there was no evidence presented at trial to support the jury’s finding that it had violated the lease. After reviewing the trial transcript, we agree. Therefore, we reverse the trial court’s order and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. The following relevant, undisputed evidence was presented at trial. Coordinated Properties owned and operated a shopping mall in Gwinnett County. In September 1996, Ralph Johnston applied with Coordinated Properties for a lease on a rental space. In applying for the lease, Johnston demonstrated that he and his wife had $1.4 million in assets, which Coordinated Properties considered adequate to ensure the Johnstons would be able to pay approximately $5,000 in monthly rent. Johnston signed a five-year lease for the space in October 1996, and the lease provided for two consecutive five-year lease renewal options. Section 24.1 of the lease provided as follows: Tenant shall not assign or in any manner transfer this lease or any estate or interest therein, . . . without the prior written consent of Landlord. . . . Notwithstanding any assignment or subletting, Tenant shall at all times remain fully responsible and liable for the payment of the rental herein specified and for compliance with all of its other obligations under this lease. Further, Section 27.1 of the lease provided that, “where consent of either party is required hereunder such consent shall not be unreasonably withheld or unreasonably delayed.”
Through the next four years, the Johnstons successfully operated a pool hall, “Lucky Breaks, Inc.,” netting between $150,000 and $200,000 annually. At some point, Johnston decided to sell the pool hall and employed a broker to find a buyer. On October 2, 2000, the broker met with Fred Filsoof, Chief Executive Officer of Coordinated Properties. The broker told Filsoof that Johnston wanted to sell the pool hall, that the broker had identified a potential buyer, and that Johnston would like Coordinated Properties to completely release him from the lease and allow the buyer to assume Johnston’s obligations under the lease. Both Johnston and the broker later testified that the purpose of the meeting was to get Coordinated Properties to substitute the potential buyer for Johnston on the lease. Filsoof told the broker that he was unwilling to release Johnston from the lease, but would allow Johnston to sublet the space to the buyer, as long as Johnston remained on the lease in case the buyer defaulted on the lease.2 The broker rejected this option, telling Filsoof that the Johnstons were in their late 70′s and did not want stay on the lease because the lease’s renewal option, of which the buyer could take advantage, could cause the Johnstons to remain obligated on the lease for another 11 years. According to the broker, Johnston was “adamant” that he wanted a complete release from liability under the lease. Filsoof insisted that he was not willing to release the Johnstons from their obligations under the lease. Following this meeting, the broker relayed Filsoof’s position to the Johnstons. There was no evidence that Johnston or the broker ever told Filsoof or Coordinated Properties before or after this meeting that Johnston would be willing to abide by Section 24.1 of the lease and remain liable on the lease if Filsoof would consent to an assignment.
