Fifty grand for being locked-out of a small restaurant? I don’t understand. A business with curious profitability is at issue in Lane v. Newberry, 2014 WL 284536 (Mo. Ct. App. W.D.).
We’ve identified some facts in the landlord/appellant’s brief. We will proceed discussing this framing of the facts, understanding that there may be a difference between appellant’s position and the respondent’s views.
A commercial landlord changed the locks, claiming tenant being in breach (the claim of breach entitling the landlord to change the locks evidently being rejected by the trial court). Evidently possession was restored a few days later.
According to landlord’s brief, the tenant received a judgment in $50,100 in connection with claims that the landlord had improperly interfered with possession. Landlord claims, it appears, access was prevented for a few days, and that the interruption occasioned a few hundred dollars in damage to the premises (such as locks and an alarm).
It would seem it would be a very profitable business that would account for such large damages. What is it? Evidently a 670 square foot establishment, known as The Dam Bar-N-Grill. Must be “dam” profitable.
More after the break ….