312 East Wisconsin Building, LLC v. Project Build Behavioral Health, LLC

COURT OF APPEALS
DECISION NOTICE
DATED AND FILED This opinion is subject to further editing. If
published, the official version will appear in
the bound volume of the Official Reports.
November 7, 2023
A party may file with the Supreme Court a
Samuel A. Christensen petition to review an adverse decision by the
Clerk of Court of Appeals Court of Appeals. See WIS. STAT. § 808.10
and RULE 809.62.

Appeal No. 2022AP1399 Cir. Ct. No. 2022CV636

STATE OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF APPEALS
DISTRICT I

312 EAST WISCONSIN BUILDING, LLC,

PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,

V.

PROJECT BUILD BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, LLC,

DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT,

BLUE MOUNTAIN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC AND ASSURED
INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT, LLC,

DEFENDANTS.

APPEAL from an order of the circuit court for Milwaukee County:
HANNAH C. DUGAN, Judge.1 Affirmed.

1
We note that Judge Hannah C. Dugan and Judge Timothy G. Dugan are not related in
any way.
No. 2022AP1399

Before White, C.J., Donald, P.J., and Dugan, J.

Per curiam opinions may not be cited in any court of this state as precedent

or authority, except for the limited purposes specified in WIS. STAT. RULE 809.23(3).

¶1 PER CURIAM. 312 East Wisconsin Building, LLC (312 East)
appeals from the order dismissing its breach of contract claim against Project
Build Behavioral Health LLC (Project Build).2 312 East argues that Project Build
became responsible for a tenant’s obligations under a lease the tenant had with 312
East. It argues that, under a document entitled “Contribution and Securities
Purchase Agreement” (the Contribution Agreement), all of the rights, title, and
interest under the lease between 312 East and the tenant—ED Management, LLC
(ED Management)—were “contributed” to Project Build. We conclude that 312
East neither sufficiently pled that the Contribution Agreement imposed the
tenant’s obligations on Project Build, nor sufficiently pled how Project Build was
a tenant by assignment of the lease when the lease had been earlier assigned to
another entity. Accordingly, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

¶2 312 East is the owner of an office building at 302-314 East
Wisconsin Avenue in Milwaukee. On January 4, 2016, 312 East entered into a
lease agreement (the Lease) for a term of 180 months with ED Management for

2
We note that in its complaint 312 East asserted claims against two other entities—Blue
Mountain Capital Management, LLC and Assured Investment Management, LLC. The circuit
court dismissed all the claims against those two entities and 312 East does not appeal the order
dismissing those claims. “[A]n issue raised in the trial court, but not raised on appeal, is deemed
abandoned.” A.O. Smith Corp. v. Allstate Ins. Cos., 222 Wis. 2d 475, 491, 588 N.W.2d 285 (Ct.
App. 1998). We consider these claims abandoned and we do not discuss these claims or entities
further.

2
No. 2022AP1399

office space in its building located at 312 East Wisconsin Avenue in Milwaukee
(the Premises).3 The Lease listed 312 East as the “Landlord” and ED Management
as the “Tenant.” At the time the Lease was executed, a separate entity, Aloria
Health of Milwaukee, LLC (Aloria), operated a clinic in the office space ED
Management leased.4

¶3 On or about May 9, 2018, ED Management and two other entities,
EABS, LLC (EABS) and EABS III, LLC (EABS III), entered into the
Contribution Agreement with Project Build.5 In its complaint, 312 East alleged
that a premise of the Contribution Agreement was that Aloria’s operations were to
be “contributed” to Project Build because Project Build needed access to real
estate in Milwaukee to continue conducting Aloria’s operations in Milwaukee. It
then alleged that “[b]ecause Project Build did not have any interest in or rights
under [the Lease] prior to the contribution, Project Build needed to obtain
authority under [the Lease] to conduct its operations at the Premises.”

¶4 312 East further alleged that under the Contribution Agreement, ED
Management would “assign all of its rights in the Aloria Trademark and [the
Lease] to EABS III[.]” EABS III would then in turn contribute its “rights, title

3
The Lease was amended on September 9, 2016, and January 1, 2017. Both
amendments were executed between 312 East and ED Management, and both stated “Except as
expressly modified herein, all of the provisions of the Lease are hereby ratified and confirmed
and shall remain unmodified and in full force and effect.”
4
We note that 312 East acknowledges that Project Build was not a party to the Lease. It
also acknowledges that ED Management, with the knowledge and consent of 312 East, assigned
the Lease to Aloria and became a guarantor of the Lease, and that Project Build was not a party to
the assignment.
5
We note that ED Management, Aloria, EABS, and EABS III, were all managed by the
same person, Benjamin Klein. Additionally, EABS III “owned all of the outstanding equity
interests in EABS, and EABS owned all of the outstanding equity interests in Aloria.”

3
No. 2022AP1399

and interest in and to [the Lease] to Project Build.” The Contribution Agreement
provided that EABS III would “contribute to Project Build, subject to and upon
receipt of the Required Approval, all of [EABS’s] right, title and interest in and
to” the Lease.6

¶5 The complaint alleged that the assignment of the Lease by ED
Management to Aloria was effective on or about September 1, 2018. The
document entitled “Assignment and Assumption of Lease and Landlord’s
Consent” (the Assignment)7 provided:

Assignee [Aloria] hereby accepts the assignment of the
Lease, including all extensions, renewals and amendments
thereto, and Assignee hereby assumes and agrees to
perform, observe and fulfill all of the agreements, terms,
covenants, conditions and other obligations required to be
performed, observed and fulfilled by Assignor [ED
Management], as Tenant, under the Lease, as and when
performance is due, including the making of all payments
due to and payable to Landlord under the Lease as they
become due….

The Assignment further states:

Except as may be expressly set forth herein, this
Assignment shall not alter, amend, or modify the Lease, nor
shall it constitute or be deemed to be a consent to any
subsequent transfer, assignment or subletting by Assignee
under the Lease, and any proposed subsequent assignment
or subletting by Assignee shall require Landlord’s prior
written consent.

Additionally, in consideration for the assignment, ED Management executed a
guaranty of the Lease to 312 East.

6
We note that Required Approvals includes “consents.”
7
We note that although 312 East’s consent as the landlord to the Assignment was
unsigned, 312 East acknowledged it consented to the assignment of the Lease.

4
No. 2022AP1399

¶6 312 East further alleged in the complaint that Project Build began to
use the leased office space at the Premises as a clinic in November 2018. EABS
III’s contribution of the Lease to Project Build was completed on or about January
29, 2019. It then alleged that by “accepting the contribution of all of the right, title
and interest in and to” the Lease “Project Build became the owner of, and
responsible for, Aloria’s responsibilities and obligations under [the Lease],
including the obligations to pay the rent and other amounts due under [the Lease]
to 312 East.”

¶7 The complaint alleged and, it is undisputed, that Aloria failed to
make a timely rent payment to 312 East in June 2019. 312 East provided Aloria
with a notice of default on June 17, 2019. It then filed a civil action against Aloria
alleging breach of contract and against ED Management alleging breach of
guaranty. Although Aloria did not respond to 312 East’s complaint, ED
Management did, but then later defaulted. The circuit court entered judgment in
excess of $20 million against Aloria and ED Management.

¶8 In January 2022, 312 East filed a complaint for breach of the Lease
against Project Build. Relevant to this appeal, 312 East alleged that Project Build
failed to cure Aloria’s default and ED Management failed to fulfill its guaranty
obligations.8 312 East alleged that Project Build breached the Lease because it
was responsible for ED Management’s tenant duties and obligations under the
Lease as a result of the Contribution Agreement. It also alleged a claim of unjust

8
We note that 312 East acknowledged that the Contribution Agreement contemplated
Project Build executing a guaranty with 312 East; however, it concluded in the complaint that a
guaranty was not necessary because Project Build was responsible by virtue of the Contribution
Agreement.

5
No. 2022AP1399

enrichment against Project Build and a claim that Project Build and Aloria were
alter egos of each other.

¶9 In March 2022, Project Build moved to dismiss 312 East’s
complaint, arguing that 312 East failed to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted on its claim that Project Build breached the Lease, that Project Build and
Aloria were alter egos, and for unjust enrichment. After a hearing in May 2022,
the circuit court issued a written decision in July 2022 that dismissed all counts. It
is from that decision and order that 312 East now appeals.9

DISCUSSION

¶10 312 East argues that the circuit court erred when it dismissed its
claims against Project Build. 312 East argues that in the complaint it pled a
plausible claim that Project Build breached the Lease that was contributed in the
Contribution Agreement. In contrast, Project Build argues that it does not have an
obligation under the Lease because it is not a party to the Lease and the leasehold
was not transferred to it. Because we conclude that 312 East has not pled
sufficient facts to support its claim for a breach of the Lease by Project Build, we
affirm the circuit court’s dismissal of its claims.10

9
We note that on appeal, 312 East does not pursue its claims of unjust enrichment and
alter ego against Project Build. We consider these claims abandoned and we do not discuss them
further. See A.O. Smith Corp., 222 Wis. 2d at 491.
10
We note that the circuit court concluded that the Contribution Agreement could not be
considered because it was extrinsic evidence to the “clear and unambiguous” Lease to which
Project Build was not a party. Upon review, we conclude that 312 East has failed to plead the
necessary facts to assert how the Contribution Agreement imposed tenant obligations under the
Lease on Project Build. This court is not constrained to the circuit court’s reasoning in affirming
its order; instead, we may affirm the circuit court’s order on different grounds. See Mercado v.
GE Money Bank, 2009 WI App 73, ¶2, 318 Wis. 2d 216, 768 N.W.2d 53. As a result, we affirm
the circuit court’s decision on different grounds.

6
No. 2022AP1399

¶11 “A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim tests the legal
sufficiency of the complaint to state a claim for which relief may be granted.”
Kaloti Enters., Inc. v. Kellogg Sales Co., 2005 WI 111, ¶11, 283 Wis. 2d 555, 699
N.W.2d 205. “Whether a complaint states a claim upon which relief can be
granted is a question of law for our independent review[.]” Data Key Partners v.
Permira Advisers LLC, 2014 WI 86, ¶17, 356 Wis. 2d 665, 849 N.W.2d 693.

¶12 “When reviewing a motion to dismiss, we generally limit the review
to the four corners of the complaint.” Pagoudis v. Keidl, 2023 WI 27, ¶4, 406
Wis. 2d 542, 988 N.W.2d 606. “When testing the legal sufficiency of a claim, all
facts alleged in the complaint, as well as all reasonable inferences from those
facts, are accepted as true.” Kaloti Enters., 283 Wis. 2d 555, ¶11. “It is the
sufficiency of the facts alleged that control the determination of whether a claim
for relief is properly plead.” Strid v. Converse, 111 Wis. 2d 418, 422-23, 331
N.W.2d 350 (1983). “Bare legal conclusions set out in a complaint provide no
assistance in warding off a motion to dismiss.” Data Key Partners, 356 Wis. 2d
665, ¶21.

¶13 “A complaint states a claim for breach of contract when it alleges:
(1) a contract between the plaintiff and the defendant that creates obligations
flowing from the defendant to the plaintiff; (2) failure of the defendant to do what
it undertook to do; and (3) damages.” Brew City Redevelopment Grp., LLC v.
The Ferchill Grp., 2006 WI App 39, ¶11, 289 Wis. 2d 795, 714 N.W.2d 582.
312 East asserts that the claim was sufficiently pled. First, it contends that the
Contribution Agreement transferred ED Management’s obligations under the
Lease to Project Build, satisfying the contract element. Second, 312 East contends
that Project Build failed to pay rent as itself, or as Aloria, satisfying the breach

7
No. 2022AP1399

element. Finally, it contends that it was damaged by the failure to pay rent,
satisfying the last element.

¶14 Project Build argues that 312 East’s claim fails at the first element—
the flow of contractual obligations to Project Build under the Lease. We agree.
To understand why, we return to 312 East’s allegations in the complaint. The
record reflects that 312 East alleged that the Contribution Agreement, dated May
2018, set up conditions by which the Lease would transfer to Project Build. While
312 East alleges that the contribution was “completed” in January 2019, it does
not allege that the conditions of completion of the “contribution” listed in the
Contribution Agreement were met. Further, 312 East does not allege that it
consented to the transfer, as required by the Lease and contemplated in the
Contribution Agreement. Therefore, even accepting all facts that were pled in the
complaint as true, we conclude that 312 East has failed to plead facts that show
that obligations under the Lease flowed to Project Build. See Kaloti Enters., 283
Wis. 2d 555, ¶11.

¶15 The second issue is that 312 East acknowledged it consented to the
assignment of the Lease from ED Management to Aloria in September 2018.
When a party accepts the assignment of a lease, as Aloria did in September 2018,
the assignee becomes obligated under the lease and liable to the owner for
payment of rent. See Anthony Gagliano & Co. v. Openfirst, LLC, 2014 WI 65,
¶50, 355 Wis. 2d 258, 850 N.W.2d 845. Although 312 East alleges that when the
Contribution Agreement was completed in January 2019, the Lease transferred
from ED Management to EABS III and then to Project Build, 312 East fails to
allege facts to support how ED Management could transfer the Lease to Project
Build via the Contribution Agreement when it had already assigned the Lease to
Aloria in the months prior. Therefore, 312 East’s allegations are contradictory.

8
No. 2022AP1399

As a result, it has not properly pled facts that state a claim upon which relief may
be granted. See Strid, 111 Wis. 2d at 422-23.

¶16 A third issue is that the Contribution Agreement would not create
tenancy obligations for Project Build without 312 East’s consent.11 When a lease
prohibits assignment or subtenancy without the landlord’s consent, a tenant’s
attempt to assign or sublease a tenancy without the landlord’s consent would
breach the tenant’s lease and justify the landlord’s termination of the lease or other
remedy. See Anthony Gagliano & Co., 355 Wis. 2d 258, ¶65. The landlord’s
remedies focus on its tenant; such a situation would not make a “nonparty to the
primary lease liable for the primary tenant’s breach.” Id. Accordingly, 312 East
has failed to sufficiently plead facts that show how the obligations under the Lease
flowed to Project Build via the Contribution Agreement when 312 East never
consented to the contribution.12 Therefore, we conclude that 312 East has failed to
state a claim for breach of contract because it has not alleged facts that show the
first element of breach of contract, namely that Project Build has a contract
obligation owed to 312 East under the Lease. See Brew City Redevelopment Grp.,
LLC, 289 Wis. 2d 795, ¶11.

11
Although 312 East asserts that it could accept the transfer without an affirmative
consent, it offers no authority for that position and the Lease itself belies the point, stating that
“[t]his Lease may be modified only by a written agreement signed by Landlord and Tenant.”
12
At most Project Build was an occupant of the space, similar to Aloria’s status when
the Lease was originally executed in 2016. Even if we were to construe that occupancy as a
subtenancy, 312 East would still not have a claim against Project Build. “There is neither privity
of estate nor privity of contract between landlord and subtenant.” Anthony Gagliano & Co. v.
Openfirst, LLC, 2014 WI 65, ¶51, 355 Wis. 2d 258, 850 N.W.2d 845.

9
No. 2022AP1399

CONCLUSION

¶17 For the reasons stated above, we conclude that 312 East has failed to
state a claim for breach of contract against Project Build. Accordingly, we affirm
the dismissal of its claims without prejudice.

By the Court.—Order affirmed.

This opinion will not be published. See WIS. STAT.
RULE 809.23(1)(b)5. (2021-22).

10