How have courts interpreted the extension clause in a lease agreement?

Plaintiff relies on rules of construction such as the "last antecedent rule" and its exceptions, and comma placement to argue that the extension clause applies to all of the preceding clauses of the paragraph; e.g., that the contract should be construed to allow extension of the leases if plaintiff continues to use the premises as a mobile home park, or if plaintiff "deems it advantageous to change the use of said premises . . . ." (See White v. County of Sacramento (1982) 31 Cal.3d 676, 680 [discussing last antecedent rule].)

As plaintiff admits, we only resort to such aids in construction if a contract is ambiguous. (People ex rel. Lockyer v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 516, 530.) Here, there are no ambiguities in the material portions of the leases. The leases provided for discrete terms of 55 years, and

Page 6

only contemplated an extension if plaintiff changed the use of the premises from a mobile home park.