On reconsideration, the district court determined that Landlord materially breached the lease and reduced her damages. The district court ruled for Landlord on breach of contract claims and awarded her damages. In this case stemming from a commercial lease dispute between Landlord and Tenant the Supreme Court held that both parties breached the lease agreement but that only the tenant's breach was material.At issue in this case was which party was first to materially breach the lease agreement at issue and whether the other's material breach discharged either party's obligations to perform under the agreement.

The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the property owners were not entitled to relief on their allegations of error. The district court granted judgment for the cell phone company, and the court of appeals affirmed. Because the company did not immediately pay the renewal rent the property owners brought suit arguing that the option had not been validly exercised.

In 2018, when the lease came up for renewal, the rent was substantially below market, and the company gave written notice of renewal to the property owners. In this action concerning a lease renewal for property on which a cell tower was built the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court and the court of appeals in favor of a cell phone service company and dismissing this action brought by property owners, holding that there was no error.In 1988, the cell phone company entered into a thirty-year lease of the subject property that included a thirty-year renewal option.

Ocheyedan to sioux city airport