McCall v. Norman The defendant-tenants made several oral complaints about mold to the plaintiff-landlords in July 2008; the landlords did not respond until the tenants made a written complaint in August 2008. The landlords inspected the rental home and claimed to see no evidence of mold. Although the tenants started sleeping elsewhere, they did not completely vacate the home until October. Contrary to the landlords’ argument, they had a reasonable opportunity to remediate the mold infestation.
Newbridge Bank v. Kotis Holdings, LLC Although a restaurant-tenant’s construction loan was secured by a deed of trust that required any excess rents (from any future tenant) to be paid to the bank, once the bank accepted a lease assignment in lieu of foreclosure and cancelled its deed of trust, the lease’s excess rents clause came back into effect and required that excess rents from the new tenant be paid to the landlord.
Raether v. GCO Energy Corp Although the trial court found that there was no meeting of the minds between the parties to form a valid lease, the evidence shows that there was a landlord/tenant relationship between the parties. Therefore, summary ejectment was an available remedy.
New Bar Partnership v. Martin The common-law rule against perpetuities applies to and bars the 35-year right of first refusal that arose in 1993 according to the plaintiff-tenant’s commercial lease.
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.
