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: A tenant that operated a market and deli entered into a lease for retail space. The lease was for five years ending in May 2016. The rental rate for the initial term was $5,500 for the first two years, and $6,000 for the remaining three years of the lease. The lease contained a renewal option giving the tenant the option of staying in its space for two additional five-year terms.
Facts: A bank leased space for its branch in a retail center. Over the course of several years, the tenant experienced sewer backups and other plumbing problems. It repaired these problems without giving notice to the landlord. After the tenant suspected that water damage had led to mold in the space, it hired a mold inspection company. The tenant contacted the landlord, informing it of the mold issue and terminating its lease effective immediately. According to the tenant it had been “constructively evicted” because of the mold hazard.
Facts: A medical tenant clinic signed a lease that it renewed for an additional five-year term. During the initial and renewal term, the tenant paid monthly rent on time. After the renewal term was over, the tenant didn’t renew the lease formally; it continued to stay in the space and pay rent on a month-to-month basis.
Facts: After a retail tenant stopped paying rent, the owner of the center asked a trial court for an “unlawful detainer” so that it could physically evict the tenant. An unlawful detainer action is a summary proceeding designed to adjudicate the right of immediate possession; the only claims in this type of proceeding are those “bearing directly on the immediate right of possession.”
Facts: A landlord served a notice to cure on its tenant, claiming that the tenant had failed to have the space’s fire sprinklers inspected. A dispute as to responsibility for the sprinklers ensued between the landlord and tenant. The tenant asked a trial court to issue a Yellowstone injunction, which is an order in the state of New York that “tolls” the cure period so that the tenant can stay in its space while the dispute is settled.
Facts: A tenant that operated two retail kiosks within a mall property thought that the owner of the center wasn’t providing adequate security. It sued the owner for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and constructive eviction after the owner took possession of the kiosks and refused to let the tenant use them. The owner claimed that the tenant hadn’t paid rent and that was why it had shut down the kiosks.
Facts: Tenants sued both the former and the current owner of the building in which they leased commercial space for failing to reimburse them for improvements they made to the premises, as required under their leases. The current owner challenged the complaint on the grounds that, as the current owner, it never assumed the obligation to pay tenant improvement costs that were incurred prior to the closing of its purchase of the building.
Facts: A tenant leased space in a shopping center for its restaurant. The tenant had an option to renew its lease, but had to exercise that option a year before the lease term was to expire. The tenant claimed that it sent a letter to the owner of its space, letting it know that it would renew its lease. The owner claimed that it hadn’t received the letter. It refused to extend the lease. The tenant sued the owner. A trial court ruled in favor of the owner, concluding that the owner wasn’t required to extend the lease. The tenant appealed.
Facts: A restaurant with a 1950s American roadside diner theme leased space at a shopping center. Later, the owner signed a lease with a pancake house restaurant franchisee for space nearby. The tenant asserted that the new lease with the pancake restaurant violated a restrictive covenant in its lease with the tenant.
Facts: Two guarantors promised to carry out the lease obligations of a restaurant tenant in the event that the tenant defaulted. The lease’s assignment and subletting clause required the tenant to get the owner’s consent to an assignment or sublet.
After the tenant made partial rent payments several months in a row, the owner terminated the lease and sued the tenant for the back rent of more than $54,000. The tenant claimed that it had, in fact, produced a subtenant for the space, but the owner unreasonably withheld its consent to that arrangement.