## Facts

- Landowners leased Idaho farm land to tenants under a 10-year written lease (Jan. 1, 1970–Dec. 31, 1979) with rent due semiannually on or before March 1 and December 1.
- The lease allowed subleasing or assignment only if the lessors’ consent was first obtained.
- In early 1978, the lessees requested consent to sublease for the 1978 crop year, offered to prepay 1978 rent, and stated they would oversee the subtenant’s operations to protect the land.
- The lessors categorically refused any sublease and later offered consent only if the lessees (1) turned over half of sublease proceeds, (2) paid 1978 property taxes, and (3) terminated the lease one year early.
- The lessees stated they would farm the land themselves but in fact sublet at least part of the premises for 1978.
- After learning of the sublease, the lessors served a notice terminating the lease and sued to terminate based on unauthorized subleasing and alleged waste (including removal of hand irrigation lines).
- The trial court found no showing of permanent injury or that the irrigation equipment would not be returned and noted the lessees had increased the land’s value.
- The lessors accepted rent payments in March and December of 1978 and 1979 while the lessees continued farming through the lease term.

## Issues

1. Whether a lessor may withhold consent to a sublease arbitrarily when the lease permits subleasing only with the lessor’s consent.
2. Whether the undisputed evidence showed the lessors withheld consent unreasonably, such that the lessees’ sublease could not justify forfeiture or termination.
3. Whether the lessors raised a genuine issue of material fact on alleged waste sufficient to defeat summary judgment.

## Decision

- The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for the lessees, leaving the lease in force.
- A consent-to-sublease clause does not permit a lessor to refuse consent arbitrarily or capriciously; consent must be exercised reasonably absent clear language granting absolute discretion.
- The lessors’ blanket refusal to allow any sublease, and their attempt to condition consent on major economic concessions and early termination, was unreasonable as a matter of law.
- The waste allegations did not create a triable issue because there was no evidence of permanent harm, no showing the removed equipment would not be returned, and the land’s value had increased.

## Legal Principles

- When a lease authorizes subleasing or assignment subject to the lessor’s consent, the lessor may not withhold consent arbitrarily or unreasonably unless the lease clearly provides otherwise.
- A lessor’s dissatisfaction with the bargain (e.g., belief rent is below market) and attempts to use consent to renegotiate financial terms are improper grounds to deny consent.
- Summary judgment is appropriate where the nonmoving party fails to present evidence creating a genuine dispute of material fact on an essential element, including alleged waste.
- “Waste” requires a showing of legally cognizable injury to the property; temporary removal of items without evidence of nonreturn or permanent damage is insufficient.

## Conclusion

The court held that a landlord’s contractual power to approve subleases carries an implied duty of reasonable exercise, and it refused to permit lease forfeiture based on a sublease undertaken after the landlord unreasonably withheld consent; the lessors also failed to produce evidence supporting a waste claim, making summary judgment proper.


Funk v. Funk, 633 P.2d 586 (Idaho 1981)