Dispute Focused On Tenant’s Ability To Use Common Areas Behind Lease Premises.
Landlord/tenant disputes can be expensive from fee expense and fee award perspectives, as Muzzi v. Bel Air Mart, Case No. C073684 (3d Dist. July 3, 2017) (unpublished) demonstrates.
In this one, landlord had to bring a “coercive” declaratory relief action against a commercial tenant based on winning a prior action in which tenant was only allowed to use common areas behind its store for loading/unloading purposes only. Tenant perceived it could stage storage of equipment for many hours, with landlord then pursuing the second action. The jury found a trespass but found no harm, with the parties stipulating to a later $1.00 in nominal damages, and the trial judge subsequently entered a permanent injunction to enjoin tenant conduct other than loading/unloading activities. Landlord had turned down a small $1,500 CCP § 998 offer. Later, the trial judge awarded landlord $324,533.50 in attorney’s fees as the prevailing party under Civil Code section 1717 (based on a broadly-worded contractual fees clause).
The Third District affirmed.
Landlord was the prevailing party given the trespass and permanent injunction wins (especially the permanent injunction win to enforce the earlier victory), especially in light of the fact that the lease clause allowed for recovery relating to any “remedy in connection with” the lease.
With respect to tenant’s suggestion it was the winner based on the 998 offer, the appellate court agreed with the landlord and trial court: it was invalid based on ambiguity. The offer contained language about “storage,” but that was too amorphous given that tenant really wanted “staging” of operational equipment for hours on end.
Comments