A long-term lease provides this:
The Lessee shall at all times during the term of this lease, subject to the terms and provisions of this lease, have the sole and exclusive right to erect, build, rebuild, repair, change, alter, or otherwise construct such buildings, appurtenances, or other improvements for commercial use as the Lessee in its sole discretion may determine, so long as same are in no instances used for an unlawful purpose, and so long as the value of such improvements shall not be diminished to less than One hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000.00) as the result of such work.
The brief is at: Mayer v. Lindenwood Female College, No. ED100587, 2014 WL 2116410 (Mo. Ct. App., E.D.). The question: Does this language allow the tenant to replace a building, as long as the improvement value continued to meet the dollar amount? I would think so. The lessor disagrees. Let’s see the brief.
More after the break …
Gordon v. Heller, 2014 WL 462933 (Mo. Ct. App. E.D.), provides an interesting illustration of the desirability of making a counterclaim.
The case involves claims by a real estate agent, who also provided staging furniture, against the former client/homeowners. As reported in the brief of the appellants/homeowners, following termination of the listing, the staging furniture remained for quite some time. The brief reports an evident judgment for the provider of staging furniture, although the brief challenges the existence of a pertinent contract. It notes there was not a signed contract–the precise terms of any oral or implicit agreement as to terms are not detailed.
The brief does not discuss application of UCC Article 2A to the arrangements (e.g., Mo. Rev. Stat. 400.2A-201 (writing requirements)). Perhaps additional briefing will illuminate that choice.
For the moment, however, we can note the homeowners make an interesting argument. They sought in a counterclaim recovery for the value of having had their house used as a storage facility for the furniture. They allege the lessor undertook to remove the furniture but did not do so promptly. I look forward to seeing the respondent’s discussion of these issues.
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 ….