Now My Trial Record is 15-0-1

Well I'm now busily hopping through and back and forth all the different stages of grief over the loss of Matt, but at least one stage, anger, found a valid use.

Yesterday, I had a Zoom trial, and it was a commercial landlord-tenant case, the first commercial landlord-tenant case the 16th District Court has had since Covid.

I'm representing the Landlord against a tenant who has not paid rent and CAM (common area maintenance fees) since even before Covid hit, a tenant that has been busily trying to unilaterally expand its tenancy beyond its space by setting up an outdoor restaurant on the back parking lot when the lease only allows outdoor seating in the front, and is otherwise acting as a pain in the rear to the landlord.

Quick note of advice:  If you as a tenant want any opportunity to settle a case and stay in your premises while not paying rent, then blatantly violating the terms of your lease and blocking a parking lot will not be helpful. Even more valuable advice - texting the landlord the weekend before the trial and calling him a bitch will really not help you get a favorable settlement.  - That's your free legal tip of the day - and it's worth what you paid for it.

So yeah, some anger on behalf of my client was called for and put to good use.

So to trial we go:

Defense counsel came out swinging with Argument #1 demanding a jury trial. Defendant has a cocky grin on his face as this is demanded, as it will delay the trial for at least another month and he'll get away with not paying rent the whole time.

Sorry, I say, but when there's no question you haven't paid rent, you lose your right to a jury trial.  The Judge agrees with the court rule and my position on that. 

Defendant appears unhappy and a tad less smug.

Defense counsel then tees up Argument #2 and still says there's triable issues before a jury as the Michigan Liquor License Commission gave them a license to setup in the back parking lot of the mall and my client is a bad man for not letting them do that, and is thus violating the covenant of quiet enjoyment by not letting him do so.

I point out that no, its not a breach of quiet enjoyment, and the Lease diagram and written language shows the only place allowed for outdoor seating is in front of the building and note that while it's really nice the MLCC gave him a permit to setup a restaurant in the back parking lot, the MLCC cannot change the terms of a lease, and next time he really should have asked his landlord for permission first, and perhaps even have made a rent payment.

The Judge is not amused with his argument and it is rejected.  

Defendant is more unhappy, and the cocky smile has turned upside down into a frown.

Defense counsel comes out with Argument #3 - allegedly my client orally agreed at some point to let his client pay CAM and outstanding rent over time and thus modified the contract.  Client did not do that in reality and funny, there's nothing in writing nor in their relationship that shows this happened.

I point out the lease clearly states any one waiver even if one occurred, which it did not, cannot modify the lease, and the lease states any modification must be in writing, so his making stuff up isn't legally cognizable. 

Judge shuts down his argument that there was this fabled verbal agreement as the lease clearly states these kinds of agreements need to be in writing to stop just this kind of making stuff up.

Defendant is much sad at this point.

Defense counsel then swings for the fences with Argument #4 and claims since there's frustration of purpose due to Covid, then the tenant doesn't have to pay rent and can still stay there operating his restaurant/bar with impunity and thus he should get a jury to decide this case.

I point out that's a nice argument but it has no legal authority in the state of Michigan for that.  The only case that comes close and deals with frustration of purpose states that if there is frustration of purpose, then the lease is rescinded at that time of frustration and the tenant would have to leave - he can't get all the benefits by claiming the portion that lets him stay is not frustrated but his requirement to pay rent is frustrated.   Yep I had that case all lined up and ready to go.

Judge agrees with my point on that too. 

 Defendant is showing visible signs of depression and the smug look on his face that was there at the start of the trial has completely vanished.

Then I, in a more legally dignified manner, but conveying the same meaning, gave basically the following summation:

So yeah, some anger was put to good use.

Judgment in my client's favor.  

Defendant tenant can pay the rent, or move out in ten days, or try to delay further by appealing.