Pulling out of a lease three years early will cost the former owners of the Wharf On Fourth seafood shop more than $18,000.

Visiting small claims court Judge Cunliffe Barnett made the order against the shop's owners, Jodi and Mark Richardson, in a four-page written decision last week.

Along with the $18,079 on the claim, Barnett ruled Diane and Gary Pettifor are also entitled to court costs, including $100 for the preparation and filing of pleadings and another $150 as compensation for inconvenience and expense as well as interest from that.

As the four-page judgment notes, the issue first came up in October 2008, when the Wharf terminated its lease three years early.

Last Jan. 26, the Pettifors filed their claim. By the time the matter went to trial earlier this month, it had increased.

As the court learned, the relationship between the landlord and tenants goes back to 2002, when the Pettifors sold the Wharf On Fourth business to the Richardsons, who rented the store premises at the south end of Fourth Avenue from the Pettifors.

In 2008, the business was paying $2,290.50 in rent each month.

"The Richardsons ran a good business, but market factors beyond their control forced them to make the sad decision to close the fish store and vacate the premises in October 2008," reads the decision.

"On Aug. 26, 2008, they wrote the Pettifors to advise them of this decision.... That letter does not reveal that the Richardsons then realized that terminating their financial obligations would, at the very least, require some negotiations with the Pettifors."

Letters sent to the Richardsons from their landlords on Sept. 7 and Sept. 10 show they were clear in their understanding of the basic legal positions of themselves and the Richardson's.

By Sept. 12, it was learned acquaintances of the Richardsons - Jonathan Peterson and Matthias Lexow - were interested in buying the property or renting the building.

"The Richardson's say that the Pettifors therefore unequivocally agreed to release them from their continuing obligations. The Pettifors say that they agreed to release the Richardsons if a satisfactory agreement was completed with Peterson and Lexow. Nothing was put in writing."

An agreement was reached with Peterson and Lexow that was signed on Sept. 14 with the letter of intent essentially stating that "all binding and legal documents must be done and approved by lawyers on both sides."

The agreement never went beyond the letter of intent.

"It seems that some persons are blaming the lawyers involved and they in turn have suggested that others were perhaps not acting in good faith," reads the judgment. "Some unpleasant and inappropriate e-mails were sent (these accompany the defendants' reply and are among the plaintiffs' exhibits).

"I believe that really, the truth of the matter is pretty simple: the agreement between the Pettifors and Peterson and Lexow was not an entire agreement and it was not completed because they were unable to reach a final agreement concerning some real - not fanciful - conditions."

With that, the judge found, it's clear the Richardsons were not released of their obligations.

"The plaintiffs' claim is well-founded," Barnett wrote, going on to dismiss a counter claim filed by the Richardsons earlier.