This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Real Property
Landlord and Tenant
Commercial Lease

Michael Yoon, et al. v. Kayla Properties, LLC, et al.

Published: Apr. 11, 2009 | Result Date: Jun. 6, 2008 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: BC384244 Verdict –  Defense

Court

L.A. Superior Central


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Mark F. Wendorff

Behzad Nahai


Defendant

Thomas J. Leanse

Daniel A. Platt
(JAMS)


Facts

Defendants Michael and Sandra Yoon owned defendants Slauson Super Mall and L.A. Slauson Swapmeet Inc. Since 1986, the Yoons rented commercial space in South Los Angeles in order to sublease the space to swap meet vendors. When the commercial property was sold to a group of investors in 2007, defendants notified the investors that they were exercising their option to rent the space for seven additional years. The investors denied defendants and asserted that the option was invalid.

Defendants filed an action for declaratory relief and sought reformation of lease based on mutual mistake. Plaintiffs Elat Properties Inc., Ethan 26 LLC, Kayla Properties LLC, Leader Group Properties LLC, Pacific Star Properties LLC, SSR LLC, and Wall Street Enterprises LLC responded by suing defendants for unlawful detainer. The two actions were consolidated.

Contentions

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiffs contended that the defendants were in breach and their option was invalid because defendants failed to gain the prior final approval of the landlord for subleases as required under the lease. As a result, defendants could not exercise the option to renew the lease and the lease expired.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS:
Defendants contended that the lease provision, which required prior landlord approval, was included by mistake. It was understood by both parties that the space would be subleased as a swap meet without landlord approval. Plaintiffs were attempting to evict defendants in order to improperly assume defendants' business and take over the swap meet. As such, plaintiffs' action was filed in bad faith.

Damages

Plaintiffs claimed back rent owed under the lease, plus an increase to the current market rate because the lease had allegedly expired.

Result

The jury issued a defense verdict finding that the defendants did not breach the lease. The court granted defendants declaratory relief and amended the lease.

Deliberation

1.5 hours

Poll

12-0

Length

five days


#82018

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390