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 fitness center tenant that had to close down temporarily in response to the governor’s COVID-19 pandemic closure orders remained in its space but didn’t pay rent for the time it was closed. The landlord sued, and the tenant relied on the lease force majeure clause and a laundry list of legal defenses in seeking to excuse its failure to pay rent. The landlord asked for summary judgment—that is, a ruling in its favor without a trial.
What Happened: Less than six months after assuming the responsibilities of the lease from the previous tenant, the assignee notified the landlord that it planned to close its furniture rental store. When it became clear that the assignee wasn’t going to pay the remaining balance due as the lease required in the event of tenant termination, the landlord demanded accelerated rent. The assignee refused, and the landlord took his case to court.
What Happened: Under a “build to suit” lease, a landlord purchased a property, made a construction contract with a builder chosen by the tenant, Dairy Queen (DQ), financed a reconstruction of the premises to a DQ restaurant, and leased the reconstructed premises to the tenant. Things went awry after DQ moved in and discovered construction defects in the improvements.
What Happened: Upon taking possession of the premises she had just leased for use as a daycare center, a tenant detected a strange odor. It turned out to be mold, and the environmental consultant’s report showed that it was all over the walls and in the carpeting of the spaces designated for classroom use. The tenant told the landlord she was rescinding the lease. The landlord offered to let her out if she paid six months’ rent or forfeited the security deposit. The tenant chose none of the above and instead sued the landlord.
What Happened: After waiting a year and a half, the tenant claimed that the landlord was in violation of its lease duty to complete the repairs necessary to make the 10,000 square feet of leased space suitable for use as a laser tag/pizzeria establishment. As provided under the lease, the dispute went to arbitration. After hearing all the arguments, the arbitrator concluded that both sides breached the lease but that the landlord was 80 percent at fault. So, it awarded the tenant $337,032 in damages for the profits lost as a result of not being able to open.
What Happened: Nobody had any issue with the auto dealer’s removal of the “Ford” sign it had installed on the lot at its own expense and owned. But the tenant also took away six large light stands when its lease came to an end. The landlord claimed that the lights were fixtures and sued the tenant for breach of lease and “conversion” of property, since the tenant destroyed the lights after removing them. The tenant denied that the lights were fixtures. But the court disagreed and found the tenant guilty of waste.
What Happened: A restaurant tenant hired a contractor to install kitchen equipment in its leased space. The tenant paid only $60,000 of the contractor’s $274,000 bill. So, the contractor placed a lien on the space to secure the balance. And since the tenant had since been evicted, the contractor named the landlord as owner of the property and went to court to foreclose. The court ruled that the lien applied only to the tenant and didn’t attach to the property. So, the contractor appealed.
What Happened: For the first six months of the lease, an African-American owner of a day spa had a “great” and “courteous” relationship with her landlord. But then came the middle-of-the-night call the landlord received from the Sheriff’s Office notifying him of the tenant’s arrest near the leased unit. The landlord was infuriated and ordered the tenant “to get your sh*# out of my property or I’ll chase you to the ends of the earth!” Eight days later, he brought an eviction suit.
What Happened: After evicting a liquor store tenant, a landlord sued for immediate possession of the property. But the tenant didn’t want to leave and offered to buy the property, citing the following option in the lease:
Tenant has option to purchase property at the end of first year lease for $320,000. The next five years shall be at market value or CPI. The remaining five years will also be at market value or CPI.
What Happened: The tenant admitted to not paying its rent. The only question was whether it had a valid defense for not doing so. The tenant’s argument: The landlord violated its “warranty of habitability” by failing to fix the leaky roof. As the landlord pointed out, the lease the parties signed was a standard boilerplate form that didn’t say anything about a warranty of habitability. The warranty was implied, the tenant countered. The court disagreed and awarded the landlord $25,000 in unpaid and holdover rent. The tenant appealed.
RSS