George

George v. City of Morro Bay

Good Law
177 F.3d 885·99 Daily Journal DAR 4957·1999 WL 322482·34 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (CRR) 514·42 Collier Bankr. Cas. 2d 196
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMay 24, 1999No. 97-56628California2,323 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Nelson, J.

This case involves Chapter 11 debtors James F. George, III, and Margie R. George (“the Georges”). The Georges appeal the district court’s order affirming the bankruptcy court’s rulings. The bankruptcy court found that the Georges rejected their lease with the City of Morro Bay (“the City”) under 11 U.S.C. § 365 (d)(4) and that the City did not waive the right to assert that the lease had been rejected. The Georges argue that Section 365(d)(4) does not apply to the lease. Further, the Georges claim that the City waived its rights under Section 365(d)(4) and should be estopped from pursuing a surrender order. We hold that the agreement with the City is a true lease under Section 365(d)(4). We also find that the City did not waive its rights and that there are no grounds for estoppel. We affirm.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In August 1987, the Georges entered a 30-year agreement, referred to as a lease in the agreement, with the City regarding waterfront property known as the Harbor Center Project (“the property”). The property and the agreement are subject to administration under the so-called California Tidelands Trust Doctrine. See Marks v. Whitney, 6 Cal.3d 251 , 258 n.…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.