Finch v. Campus Habitat, L.L.C. The parties’ lease requires the plaintiff-tenant to pay any attorney’s fees incurred by the defendant-landlord as a result of a breach by the tenant. Since the lease does not specify a percentage, and since the trial court based its attorney’s fee award on G.S. § 6-21.2(2), the trial court was required to limit its attorney’s fee award to 15 percent of the outstanding balance on the lease. The trial court awarded the landlord $3,090 in unpaid rent; therefore, the attorney’s fee award should not have exceeded $463.50.
Laurel Hill Apartments v. Hall The defendant-tenant’s lease was subsidized by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Section 8 program; therefore, 24 C.F.R. § 247.6 required the plaintiff-landlord to give the tenant written notice that it was terminating her lease. The landlord’s oral notice and the posting of the tenant’s bounced check failed to comply with the notice requirements of the parties’ lease and HUD regulations.
REMI ex rel. Izquierdo v. Tyrone Even though the defendant-tenant contended that she and her children developed health problems due to the black mold infestation in their apartment, her testimony and medical bills were insufficient to prove that the medical bills resulted from the black mold infestation. Expert medical evidence was required; without it, the trial court should not have awarded the tenant damages based on the medical bills.
Allison v. Davidson Any connection between the defendant-landlord’s interference with the plaintiff-tenant’s fishing operation and an award of damages for lost profits for the remaining 13 years of the lease was far too speculative to support an award of several hundred thousand dollars in damages.
The landlord is entitled to a new trial on the issue of damages.
Hylton v. Hanesbrands, Inc. When a manufacturer leased property to a tenant so the tenant could provide power to the manufacturer, the lease provisions did not give the manufacturer authority over safety on the leased property.
We affirm summary judgment for the defendant-landlord.
Nasser v. Dynamic Images Salon & Spa, Inc. Where the defendant-tenant’s answer and counterclaims were not verified, the trial court did not err by failing to consider the allegations set forth therein when the court decided the plaintiff-landlord’s motion for summary judgment.
We affirm summary judgment for the landlord on his claims. However, we vacate the trial court’s dismissal of the tenant’s counterclaims.
Havelock Yacht Club, Inc. v. Crystal Lake Yacht Club, Inc. Where the plaintiff-landlord terminated a lease and sought to eject the defendant-tenant from the premises, summary judgment was properly granted to the landlord since the tenant’s affidavits did not create a genuine issue of material fact regarding the validity of the landlord’s termination of the lease.
McCall v. Norman Where the trial court’s order simply states that, “by the greater weight of the evidence,” the plaintiff-landlords had failed to prove their claims for past rent and damages and the defendant-tenants had proven their counterclaims for damages to personal property, negligence, and breach of the warranty of habitability, the trial court’s order does not meet the requirements of N.C. R. Civ. P. 52(a)(1), and appellate review is not possible.
Henry James Bar-Be-Que, Inc. v. Gilmore. A lease provision prohibited the plaintiff-tenant from subletting the premises without the landlord's permission, but the tenant did so anyway. Where the . . .
Santos v. Briones. The evidence presented at trial of unpaid rent was within the issues raised by the pleadings, therefore; the trial court did not err in admitting such evidence. The trial court's finding that . . .
