Chantilly Properties I, LLC v. David P. Justice d/b/a Mattress Fair

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 04/12/2013 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , A l a b a m a A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2012-2013 2110742 Chantilly P r o p e r t i e s I, LLC v. David P. J u s t i c e d/b/a Mattress Fair Appeal from Montgomery C i r c u i t Court (CV-10-1562) PER CURIAM. This appeal stems f r o m an a c t i o n f i l e d i n t h e Montgomery C i r c u i t C o u r t b y C h a n t i l l y P r o p e r t i e s I , L L C ("the l a n d l o r d " ) , a g a i n s t D a v i d P. J u s t i c e ( " t h e t e n a n t " ) , an i n d i v i d u a l who h a d done b u s i n e s s u n d e r t h e t r a d e name " M a t t r e s s F a i r " a n d who h a d l e a s e d a r e t a i l s p a c e i n a Montgomery s h o p p i n g c e n t e r from t h e landlord i n 2007; the l a n d l o r d a l l e g e d i n i t s complaint that 2110742 the tenant had the plus $17,259.97 breached lease attorney fees and and owed the expenses. landlord The tenant, appearing pro se, d i r e c t e d a l e t t e r to the t r i a l c o u r t t h a t he intended as an answer t o t h e c o m p l a i n t ; i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t , he admitted t h a t he his owed two months' worth of r e n t a l minus s e c u r i t y d e p o s i t b u t t h a t he owed n o t h i n g e l s e b e c a u s e had v a l i d l y i n v o k e d an " e s c a p e c l a u s e " i n t h e l e a s e . b r i e f ore tenus p r o c e e d i n g , in fees favor of the he After a the t r i a l c o u r t e n t e r e d a judgment l a n d l o r d but assessed damages at $10,000. F o l l o w i n g the d e n i a l of the l a n d l o r d ' s postjudgment motion to alter, from amend, o r v a c a t e the trial court's the judgment, the l a n d l o r d appealed judgment court, jurisdiction b a s e d upon t h e Code 1975, to this has 12-3-10). § At t r i a l , the tenant (see Ala. t h e l a n d l o r d ' s p r o p e r t y manager t e s t i f i e d that and the agreement. The original evidence the landlord, by amount i n c o n t r o v e r s y which landlord had lease 1 which entered agreement dates into a introduced from c o n s i s t e d o f a s e r i e s o f numbered p a r a g r a p h s . January Although l a n d l o r d ' s c o p y o f t h e l e a s e a g r e e m e n t ends a t P a r a g r a p h lease into 2007, the 28.2, A l t h o u g h none o f t h e o r i g i n a l e v i d e n t i a r y e x h i b i t s f r o m t h e t r i a l were i n i t i a l l y s e n t t o t h i s c o u r t by t h e t r i a l - c o u r t c l e r k , t h o s e e x h i b i t s were t r a n s m i t t e d t o t h i s c o u r t a f t e r submission of the appeal. C f . R u l e 13, A l a . R. App. P. 1 2 2110742 Paragraph 1.1(u) provisions expressly numbered 29, states 30, on D u r i n g t h e manager's t e s t i m o n y on d i r e c t e x a m i n a t i o n , he stated that the and his t e n a n t ' s m o n t h l y r e n t a l had tenant that, lease t e r m and "[e]xcept Guaranty is conditions owed t h e as in otherwise full force amended and manager landlord, a total of at of the which Lease and a l l terms and asked whether the and the stated same." was the familiar been c o n t a i n e d copy above, effect tenant with that had i n the o r i g i n a l l e a s e agreement (and appeared i n the t e n a n t ' s copy t h e r e o f ) the landlord payment o f a g r e e d c h a r g e s , a l s o cross-examination, landlord's in lease four a d d i t i o n a l paragraphs p e r t a i n i n g remain the During apparently amendment t o t h e to However, t h e amendment t o t h e l e a s e a g r e e m e n t , i n addition to containing to the been changed t h e manager f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t , b a s e d upon c a l c u l a t i o n s , the $50,049.23. are hereto." $5,124.66 p u r s u a n t t o a F e b r u a r y 2010 a g r e e m e n t , and 32 "[a]dditional included Addendum t o L e a s e a t t a c h e d 31 that agreement time f o l l o w i n g p r o v i s i o n had offered the a term but t h a t d i d not i n t o evidence manager admitted appear by the that the indeed appeared i n the o r i g i n a l agreement: 3 lease 2110742 " I n t h e e v e n t B r u n o ' s [ i . e . , a g r o c e r y t h a t was another former tenant of the l a n d l o r d ' s ] ceases t o o p e r a t e i n t h e S h o p p i n g C e n t e r f o r more t h a n one h u n d r e d e i g h t y (180) c o n s e c u t i v e d a y s , a n d T e n a n t ' s s a l e s d e c r e a s e more t h a n t h i r t y p e r c e n t (30%) o r more f o r t h e one h u n d r e d e i g h t y (180) d a y s a f t e r store closes, Tenant shall have t h e r i g h t to t e r m i n a t e t h i s L e a s e w i t h a s i x t y (60) day w r i t t e n notice to Landlord, unless Landlord or Landlord's a s s i g n s r e p l a c e s Bruno's w i t h a comparable major tenant w i t h i n the Shopping Center." T h a t l a n g u a g e a p p e a r s as " A r t i c l e 32" i n a document "Addendum t o L e a s e " t h a t was i n t r o d u c e d tenant, and i t s numbering matches i n t o e v i d e n c e by t h e one p a r a g r a p h s o f t h e addendum t o t h e l e a s e i n paragraph 1.1(u). The t e n a n t , h a d moved January out of h i s leased 2010, that he had of the agreement numbered identified during h i s testimony, t h a t B r u n o ' s h a d moved o u t o f i t s l e a s e d he entitled store tried and stated s p a c e i n 2009, that b u t had r e t u r n e d failed in t o make h i s b u s i n e s s work w i t h o u t t h e Bruno's s t o r e b e i n g a g o i n g c o n c e r n , and t h a t he h a d t h e n g i v e n his rights the tenant's words: center, could under t h e c l a u s e there not n o t i c e t h a t he w o u l d be e x e r c i s i n g identified as " A r t i c l e In " W i t h no a n c h o r t e n a n t i n t h e s h o p p i n g was no t r a f f i c the t o t a l i n the shopping center. And I s a l e s were l e s s t h a n e l e c t r i c i t y and s a l a r y I was p a y i n g my e m p l o y e e , s o I h a d t o g i v e In t h i s 32." case, the t r i a l court, i n "find[ing] the issues i n favor o f " the l a n d l o r d but simultaneously 4 i t up." determining that 2110742 t h e t e n a n t s h o u l d pay the landlord, proposition, o n l y $10,000 i n s t e a d o f o v e r $50,000 t o appears advanced by i n c l u d e d i n A r t i c l e 32 have t e r m e d an parties' upon have the own lease trial terminate the accepted that the was indeed a g r e e m e n t and testimony, lease a part properly invoked as amended. specific the trial judgment; (Ala. f i n d i n g s of 1992) fact, to and we, disturb is as an 60 8 378 liberty There T r a n s a m e r i c a C o m m e r c i a l F i n . C o r p . v. AmSouth Bank, N.A., 375, at that months' n o t i c e o f h i s i n t e n t agreement not based See 2d are the i t . So. court, of tenant, evidence to support that i m p l i c i t determination, appellate counsel t h a t the had the language which the t e n a n t ' s a p p e l l a t e " e s c a p e c l a u s e " by p r o v i d i n g two to implicitly tenant, "escape c l a u s e " original his to (when trial appellate court judge will makes assume j u d g e made t h o s e f i n d i n g s n e c e s s a r y t o s u p p o r t trial court's judgment and a l l implicit n o t be reversed unless f o u n d t o be plainly that the findings necessary to support i t c a r r y a presumption of correctness will no and and palpably trial court's wrong). Although there implicit i s evidence to support the determination regarding the tenant's timely p r o p e r i n v o c a t i o n of the escape c l a u s e , the t e n a n t ' s counsel have conceded, and we 5 agree, that and appellate there is no 2110742 e v i d e n t i a r y b a s i s upon w h i c h t h e $10,000 damages a w a r d c a n be s a i d p r o p e r l y t o stand. The t e n a n t admitted at t r i a l t h a t he owed two months o f r e n t a l c h a r g e s t o t h e l a n d l o r d p u r s u a n t t o the escape clause because he h a d n o t p a i d rent f o r that p e r i o d , and n e i t h e r p a r t y d i s p u t e s t h a t t h e p r e v a i l i n g monthly rental charge $5,124.66. implicit as s t a t e d Thus, i n t h e amended although determination we lease affirm that the tenant a g r e e m e n t was the t r i a l properly court's invoked the e s c a p e c l a u s e , we r e v e r s e t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s damages a w a r d , a n d we remand t h e c a u s e f o r that court to correctly determine, f r o m t h e e x i s t i n g r e c o r d , t h e a p p r o p r i a t e amount o f damages t o award t o t h e l a n d l o r d w i t h respect after the tenant's enter a judgment i n conformance w i t h t h a t AFFIRMED triggering t o t h e two-month p e r i o d IN PART; o f t h e escape REVERSED INSTRUCTIONS. All the judges concur. 6 IN PART; clause and t o determination. AND REMANDED WITH

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.