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.
Facts: The lease between a multiple-phase shopping center owner and national tenant indicated that the tenant would occupy a space in building A of phase one in the not-yet-constructed property. The lease contained certain provisions concerning the construction process and the future tenants of the center.
Facts: A shopping center tenant affixed its name to a pylon sign on the property. The owner of the center disputed the tenant’s right to use the sign. The owner and tenant each asked a trial court for a judgment in its favor without a trial.
Decision: A Massachusetts trial court ruled in favor of the tenant.
Facts: A shopping center owner decided to construct a new set of buildings within the shopping center grounds, which would house tenants that would be beneficial to its anchor store, a national clothing retailer. The retailer’s lease contains a clause that requires the owner to get the retailer’s approval before constructing any new building or structure within the shopping center.
Facts: A sushi restaurant began operating in the basement space of a mixed-use brownstone building that included other commercial space and some apartments. It became apparent that cooking odors were wafting into the first-floor commercial space, which was vacant but being shown to prospective tenants by a realtor. Several prospective tenants didn’t sign leases because of the odor. The tenant took steps to ameliorate the cooking odor, but the landlord continued to complain about that and other unrelated supposed lease defaults.
Facts: A shopping center owner and a restaurant tenant signed a lease for a certain amount of space. Under the lease, the tenant was required to pay monthly rent consisting of two components. The first component, called “Minimum Rent,” involved a flat, base amount calculated on the amount of square footage of leased space. This base rate was graduated to increase annually over the term of the lease.
Facts: Two tenants leased space at a property. The first tenant had a right of first refusal to buy the entire property, including the second tenant’s space, if a third party made an offer. The second tenant had the option to buy its own space at a certain year in its lease term. But that was subject to the first tenant’s right of first refusal—that is, if the first tenant were offered the opportunity to buy the second tenant’s space that year; if it did not want to do so, the second tenant was free to buy it.
Facts: A souvenir shop tenant’s lease that was signed in 2000 required it to provide an estoppel certificate to the owner of the building within 10 days. There was a dispute between the owner and tenant as to whether that version of the lease or a new lease that had been executed in 2013 controlled the space the tenant rented. The 2013 lease didn’t require the tenant to provide an estoppel certificate. The tenant wanted to wait until the dispute was settled to sign an estoppel certificate, in the event that the 2000 lease controlled the situation.
Facts: In order to open and operate a daycare under state law, Florida daycare tenants must first sign a lease for space before applying for a license to operate the business. A daycare executed a five-year commercial lease for two store spaces in a shopping center while it applied for and waited for its license. The daycare owners executed personal guarantees of the lease. The lease stated that the tenant could use the premises “solely for the purpose of the operation of a child day care center” for up to 35 children between the ages of 6 weeks and 5 years.
Facts: A tenant that operated a gym received a notice from the owner of its space ordering it to obtain the proper permits to operate its business, which were required by its lease. The tenant asked a New York trial court for a Yellowstone injunction, which would toll—that is, pause—the period to cure the alleged violations of the lease. The tenant claimed that it was still in the process of obtaining the necessary approvals and permits.
Decision: A New York trial court granted the Yellowstone injunction.
Facts: A grocery store customer who slipped and fell on ice in the strip mall’s parking lot sued the grocery store tenant, the center’s owner, and the snow-removal contractor and subcontractor for her injuries. She asserted that they all had a duty of care to keep the parking lot free of ice that posed a danger to customers. All four parties asked a trial court for a judgment in their favor without a trial, and a trial court ruled in their favor. The customer appealed.
RSS