VILLAGE COMMONS, LLC V. THE MARION COUNTY PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE
882 N.E.2d 210 (2008)
NATURE OF THE CASE: Village (P) appealed a determination that Marion (D), tenant,
defenses and counterclaim were not barred by an exclusive-remedy provision in the lease,
that D was evicted then constructively evicted, that P did not reasonably mitigate damages
and that D was awarded damages for its wrongful eviction counterclaim.
FACTS: On June 2, 1999, D leased property from Lombard and thereafter Lombard sold the
property to P and assigned the Lease to P. D sued the space for its grand jury
administration. P was required to maintain all equipment used in common with other
tenants--such as elevators, plumbing, heating and similar equipment--and to maintain the
premises in good order, condition and repair. In the event of breach, the lease provided
that the D could 'sue for injunctive relief or to recover damages for any loss resulting
from the breach, but [it] shall not be entitled to terminate this Lease or withhold, setoff
or abate any rent due thereunder.' In 2001, there was water problems from the outside and
leaks from building equipment, which damaged property secured by D and affected the areas
that D occupied or used. Leaks occurred on March 11, June 25, August 2, and August 16. On
August 24 and 28 P took an inventory of water spots on ceiling tiles and other water damage
throughout D's leased area and noted several spots and other damage that had been caused by
sweating pipes or leaks. On August 28 and September 10 leaks were again noted, which were
either caused by cracks in the sidewalk or steam from Indianapolis Power and Light's
underground pipes. P hired Indoor Air Management (IAM) to conduct microbiological sampling
and visual inspections. IAM reported visual signs of water damage. P caulked and sprayed
sealant on the sidewalk above on several occasions, but these actions did not stop the
leaking. The drywall was scheduled to be repaired, but another leak delayed the work.
Another leak was discovered outside of an office on January 22, 2002, and was noticeably
worse on January 29, 2002. On Memorial Day 2002, the main water supply pipe in the
building's air conditioning system broke causing a leak in D's evidence room. Approximately
seventy boxes of evidence were damaged. On June 10, 2002, mold spores were detected. P had
its maintenance man perform demolition and replace drywall. P's maintenance man did not
perform several of the tasks recommended by the expert who detected the spores. Problems
persisted and into 2002 and at least one D's employees complained of suffering from unusual
coughing and sneezing for a prolonged period of time. Another of D's employees experienced
headaches while working at the leased premises. Problems continued into 2003 and on January
28, 2003, a major water intrusion was discovered in the main evidence room. An employee
photographed a stream of water pouring from the ceiling. On January 30, 2003, D elected to
vacate the leased premises. January 2003, was the last month that D paid rent leaving three
years and eleven months, or $380,477.37, unpaid according to the terms of the Lease. On
February 23, 2004, P filed against D for breaching the lease. D counterclaimed on a wrongful
eviction theory. D alleged that it had been constructively evicted in August 2002. After a
bench trial the trial court held that D's defenses and counterclaim were not barred by the
Lease's exclusive-remedy provisions; (2) D was 'actually' evicted in October 2002 and then
'constructively' evicted in January 2003; and (3) assuming the Landlord could recover
against the D, the Landlord did not mitigate its damages reasonably. D was awarded $ 7,664
and costs on its wrongful eviction counterclaim. P appealed.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner
No comments:
Post a Comment