We use cookies to provide you with a better experience. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies in accordance with our Cookie Policy.
What Happened: A city in Oregon purchased commercial property that it intended to develop for a City Hall. The sale agreement required the owner to deliver the property free of tenants. The owner kept its end of the bargain by informing the tenants of the sale, ending their leases, and letting them stay on a month-to-month basis until the city took ownership.
What Happened: After experiencing what he felt was rude and humiliating treatment by a Subway employee while ordering a steak sandwich, a customer brought an ADA lawsuit against not just the restaurant where the incident happened but the franchisor company, which it claimed was responsible for the disability discrimination committed by its franchisees. The franchisor denied having any liability for the incident and asked the court to let it out of the case.
What Happened: Erection of a reception desk and bar fixture containing sinks for mixing hair color were among the improvements made at the landlord’s expense before a hair salon tenant moved in and opened shop. The reception desk and color bar were also among the assets the tenant attempted to sell upon vacating the premises seven years later. But the landlord insisted that it owned the fixtures, and the asset sale eventually fell through. So the tenant removed the reception desk and color bar, and the landlord had to rebuild them for the next tenant.
What Happened: After experiencing repeated problems with the building sewage system, a bank branch tenant decided to move out. In its notification letter, the tenant claimed that it was subjected to “hazardous environmental conditions”—namely, mold and sewage backup—and claimed that the landlord’s failure to remedy the problem was constructive eviction. The landlord, in turn, sent the tenant a default notice, and it was on to litigation.
What Happened: Sharing an office building with a gym where individuals and classes deliberately dropped free weights to the ground as part of their “Cross Fit” training made it hard for a tenant to carry out its radiation practice in peace. Frustrated with its failure to stop the “constant array of disturbances, excessive vibrations, massive booms, noxious noise and adverse effect on hangers supporting pipes and conduits,” the tenant sued the landlord for nuisance.
What Happened: An auto detailing tenant acknowledged installing a parking lot area without the landlord’s authorization and then vacating with 19 months remaining on the lease. The question: How much, if any, of the rent the landlord received from the new tenant should be offset against the previous tenant’s debts? The court turned to the following lease language:
What Happened: After spending more than $45,000 for improvements, a tenant claimed that it discovered that the premises it leased for five years for use as a hair salon was only 452 square feet rather than the 600 square feet the landlord represented. So the tenant asked for a rent break. When the landlord refused, it stopped paying rent, prompting the landlord to sue for eviction. The tenant claimed that the landlord made false representations about the square footage of the property and asked for the lease to be rescinded.
What Happened: In 2016, a grocery store tenant tried to renew the 15-year lease it signed in 1999, but the landlord claimed that it was too late because the six-month renewal window had already expired. The issue: When did the lease actually begin? The landlord claimed that it commenced when the tenant opened for business in 2001; the tenant claimed it commenced when the sides re-executed the lease as part of a construction settlement dispute in 2007.
Decision: The Pennsylvania court sided with the landlord.
What Happened: A tanning salon tenant sued its landlord for breach of contract but listed the wrong corporate name. Before the tenant could file an amended suit with the landlord’s proper corporate name, the landlord stole the march by filing its own eviction case in the same court. The court gave the tenant a chance to file an answer listing its breach of contract counterclaims.
What Happened: A shopping center lease let the tenant pay reduced rent if an anchor closed and wasn’t replaced within 120 days. In July 2016, an anchor tenant, Sports Authority, closed and the landlord didn’t find a replacement for nearly three years. But the tenant forgot about the co-tenancy clause and continued to pay full rent for two-and-a-half years. When it finally realized its mistake in December 2018, it sought to take back the rent reductions it missed out on by announcing plans to withhold $254,583 from future rent payments.
RSS