Owner Loses

RSS

Facts: When an anchor tenant closed its store at a shopping center, the cotenancy clause in a lease between an arts-and-crafts supply retailer and the center’s owner was triggered. When the owner had failed to obtain another anchor tenant after six months, the tenant started paying the lower alternative rent provided for in the cotenancy clause.

Facts: The employee of a tenant who rented retail space was injured when a light fixture fell on her upper back and neck while she was working. The employee sued the owner. The owner asked a trial court for a judgment in its favor without a trial. The trial court granted the owner’s request. The tenant appealed.  

Decision: An Iowa appeals court reversed the ruling and sent the case back to the lower court for a trial.

Facts: An owner claimed that its restaurant tenant breached the lease by failing to remove “trade” fixtures before moving out. The tenant argued that it wasn’t required to remove the fixtures because the owner hadn’t complied with the lease terms regarding fixture removal. The owner sued the tenant. The tenant asked a court to dismiss the case. 

Decision: A Massachusetts trial court ruled in favor of the tenant.

Facts: A retail lease provided that attorney’s fees and expenses would be awarded to the prevailing party in “any dispute” between the owner and tenant arising out of the use or occupancy of the space. The owner later sued the tenant for several claims involving lease violations. After the tenant successfully defended itself against one of the owner’s claims—forcible-entry-and-detainer—it was allowed to continue occupying its space; it didn’t prevail on the other claims.

Facts: The lease between a shopping center owner and a supermarket tenant contained a restrictive-use covenant prohibiting the owner from leasing space to another grocery store or “food market.” The lease defined food market to include any vendor selling food items. The owner later leased space on the premises for a farmer’s market made up of “stalls” run by vendors selling various types of food. Two stalls were directly in the shopping center.

Facts: A bank tenant signed a triple-net lease for a standalone building in a shopping center. (Under a typical "triple-net" lease, the tenant pays all expenses, including property taxes and insurance, maintenance, and utilities, leaving the owner with no expense associated with the property.) Under the triple-net lease, the tenant would be responsible for property management tasks and their cost for its leased space, but also pay a share of the common area maintenance expenses for the rest of the property.

Facts: A bookstore tenant filed for bankruptcy. During the bankruptcy proceedings regarding whether its lease would be rejected or assumed, the owner sent the tenant a notice requesting access to the tenant’s space to perform an “as-built” survey of the space to determine whether it was structurally sound in case of an earthquake or needed work to make it so. The tenant refused access to the space, which resulted in the owner incurring additional costs. The owner asked the bankruptcy court to award it those costs and the cost of the surveyor.

Facts: After an office tenant held over its space past its lease term and stopped paying rent, the owner sued the tenant’s president in his personal capacity, asserting that he was a guarantor of the lease and thus was responsible for paying the rent when the tenant stopped. The president claimed that he hadn’t executed a personal guaranty of the lease between the tenant and owner that could be enforced. A trial court agreed and ruled in favor of the tenant. The owner appealed.

Facts: A dry cleaning business in a shopping center incorrectly installed commercial dryers in its space without using a professionally trained installer. It vented the dryers into the attic instead of to the building’s exterior. The shoddy installation later caused a fire. The center’s owner sued the tenant for negligence and breaching its lease by taking actions that damaged the center. The tenant asked a district court for a judgment in its favor without a trial. The district court ruled in favor of the tenant. The owner appealed.

Facts: An office tenant’s lease contained two conflicting provisions regarding the time frame in which the owner was required to fix damage to the tenant’s space. After a roof collapse led to flooding and damage that forced the tenant out of its space temporarily, the tenant—under one lease provision—demanded that the owner fix the damage within 30 days or allow the tenant to terminate its lease. The owner argued that a second lease provision gave it 90 days to fix the damage. The tenant moved out. The owner sued the tenant for breaching its lease.