Owner Loses

RSS

Facts: A large retail bank approached an owner about leasing space so that it could open a branch. After several discussions and an assessment of the premises, the bank determined that the premises would not be suitable for its design. As a result, the bank sought and found suitable space to the west of the premises.

After securing the suitable space, the bank went back to the owner of the premises and signed a nonbinding letter of intent (LOI), meaning that it would not be bound by the terms agreed to during negotiations until there was a signed lease.

Facts: A tenant and an owner entered into a five-year lease, and the tenant made a $10,000 security deposit. Three years into the lease, the tenant approached the owner, wanting to transfer its lease to another business owner. The owner refused, and the tenant and the new business owner signed a new lease with the owner. The new lease allowed the new business owner to take over the space, but the tenant remained partly responsible for the space.

Facts: A tenant agreed to lease space in a strip mall. The tenant leased only one space, but at the time the lease was signed, the space was not big enough for the tenant to run its business. To accommodate the tenant, the owner offered to let the tenant use an adjacent space until it could modify the leased space. The tenant took over the space.

Facts: A large retail bank approached an owner about leasing space so that it could open a branch. After several discussions and an assessment of the premises, the bank determined that the premises would not be suitable for its design. As a result, the bank sought and found suitable space to the west of the premises.

After securing the suitable space, the bank went back to the owner of the premises and signed a nonbinding letter of intent (LOI), meaning that it would not be bound by the terms agreed to during negotiations until there was a signed lease.

Facts: A tenant entered into a 10-year lease that contained a clause giving it the option to purchase the property at the end of the lease period. The lease did not indicate how the option to purchase must be exercised. After approximately two years, the tenant merged with another company and sought to exercise its right to purchase the property by giving the owner notice that it intended to exercise the purchase option. The owner never responded.

Facts: In 2005, an owner and tenant entered into a five-year lease. In May 2007, after the tenant failed to pay its rent and placed a “Store Closing” sign in its window, the owner began looking for a replacement tenant.

The owner signed a lease with a new tenant for a period of five years and two months, with a start date of June 1, 2007. As part of the agreement, the new tenant was given possession of the premises on June 1, 2007, rent free for two months; the first rent payment was due Aug. 1, 2007.

Facts: Shortly after signing a lease, the tenant experienced significant leaking from the roof of her building. After several attempts by the owner to fix the leaking roof and an eventual roof replacement, the tenant moved back into the space. Another storm caused additional water damage and made the space uninhabitable. The tenant moved out and sued the owner, alleging that the lease required it to provide a serviceable, leak-free roof. The circuit court ruled in favor of the tenant.

Facts: A tenant decided to turn over ownership of its business to an employee. The employee informed the owner orally that he was taking over the tenant's business, but did not go through the formality of having the space assigned with a lease agreement. The owner continued to accept rent from the employee.

Facts: In exchange for a significant rent increase, an owner agreed not to lease space to any business that sold the same types of products as the tenant.

Facts: An owner sued a tenant, claiming that it owed past-due rent. The amount was in dispute. The owner submitted two separate amounts, with one being substantially larger than the other. In accordance with state law, the tenant deposited the disputed amount in an account managed by the court and then filed a response contesting the owner's claim.

Even though the owner was unable to prove which amount was correct, the lower court ruled in its favor and granted possession. However, the court delayed execution of the order, pending the tenant's appeal.