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: Frustrated by the landlord’s failure to remedy unsanitary conditions at the site, a warehouse tenant moved out of the property and stopped paying rent. In the lawsuit that followed, the tenant claimed the landlord violated the implied warranty of habitability. The court rejected the defense and awarded the landlord damages and attorney fees.
Ruling: The Nevada appeals court upheld the lower court’s ruling.
What Happened: A landlord sued Saks, Inc., for failure to honor a corporate guaranty of its subsidiary’s obligation to pay rent under its shopping center lease. Saks owes us attorneys’ fees and consequential damages covering the loss in the property’s value we suffered due to its breach, the landlord argued. Saks denied liability for consequential damages since such losses were unforeseeable at the time the lease was signed.
Ruling: The Northern District of Illinois federal court sided with the landlord.
What Happened: In May 2020, with the pandemic in full rage, New York City adopted a law banning commercial landlords from harassing tenants. A bridal shop tenant invoked the law after the landlord sued it and its guarantor for unpaid rent and additional rent for real estate tax and utilities cost escalations. The court didn’t buy it and awarded the landlord summary judgment without need for a trial. The tenant appealed.
What Happened: A clothing retailer leased space for “[a]ny general retail use, including the display and sale of apparel, shoes and accessories, gifts, cards, furniture, home furnishings, housewares, packaged foods prepared for off-site consumption, plants, fresh and dried flowers, pots, containers and stands for plants or flowers, and/or items related to the foregoing, together with ancillary office and storage use.” The lease also excused the tenant’s duty to pay rent
What Happened: Shopping center tenants complained to the landlord about the “overwhelming unpleasant possibly toxic odors” emanating from their neighboring bar lounge tenant whose patrons were apparently allowed to smoke tobacco and marijuana with impunity. The landlord warned the tenant about violating house rules barring use of the premises for illegal and nuisance activities. A week later, it reentered the space, changed the locks, and removed the tenant’s property.
What Happened: In 2019, a clothing store signed a 10-year lease on commercial property in Chicago, starting in September 2020. But the COVID-19 pandemic hit and the tenant never moved in. In May 2021, the landlord sold the building and terminated the lease. In addition to $1.4 million in unpaid rent from September 2020 to May 2021, the landlord sued the tenant for $3 million representing the rental value of the leased property over the remainder of the lease term after it sold the property.
What Happened: February 2020 was the last month a high-end steak house restaurant tenant paid full rent. When COVID-19 hit, the restaurant had to shut down and later could open only for outdoors and indoor dining at very limited capacity. In September, the tenant moved out at the landlord’s demand. Three months later, the landlord found a replacement at a much lower rent. It then sued the tenant and guarantor for unpaid and unjust enrichment in using the space without paying rent for six months.
What Happened: The employee of a tenant suffered serious injury after a heavy box fell on top of him. The victim blamed the accident on the leaky warehouse roof, which caused the box to become waterlogged and weakened the palette holding it up. He sued the landlord for negligence. His theory: As an invitee, the landlord owed him a duty of reasonable care.
Ruling: The Michigan appeals court upheld the lower court’s decision to toss the case without a trial.
What Happened: What happens when a tenant signs a five-year lease on a warehouse for use as an indoor cannabis cultivation facility but can’t get the necessary permits because the property doesn’t have an adequate fire sprinkler system? The tenant figured the landlord would install the system; the landlord thought it was up to the tenant to install the system. And when the tenant continued the grow operation without meeting this responsibility, the landlord brought an eviction suit. The trial court sided with the tenant.
What Happened: An office tenant moved out when quality testing of the air inside an office building revealed the presence of asbestos at unsafe levels. The landlord sued for unpaid rent, and the tenant countersued the landlord for negligence by undertaking repairs on the roof knowing it might disturb asbestos-containing materials. It also asserted another tort-based counterclaim for products liability. You can’t raise tort claims in a contract lawsuit, the landlord argued.
RSS