Virginia Commercial Lease Expiry Landlord Arbitrary Lawyers Attorney
VIRGINIA CASE FOR COMMERCIAL LITIGATION
Facts:
The parties entered into a lease agreement for a 20-year period. There was some discrepancy as to when the lease term ended. The lease provided that the tenant had the right to sublet the leased premises to any subsidiary of the tenant. In consolidated cases, plaintiff landlord brought an action against defendant tenant for unlawful detainer. The landlord claimed that the tenant breached a sublease provision of a primary lease and that the primary lease had expired. The tenant claimed that the primary lease term had not expired and that the landlord acted unreasonably and arbitrarily in denying the sublease and that the landlord’s motive was to extract rent concessions.
Issue:
Whether the primary lease term had not expired and that the landlord acted unreasonably and arbitrarily in denying the sublease?
Discussion:
This court held that the Tenant bears the burden of establishing that the Landlord’s action was arbitrary and unreasonable. Because this is a commercial lease, the Landlord’s actions are governed by principles of fair dealing and commercial reasonableness. This court held that the lease term had not expired, but found for the landlord in the second detainer action. After finding that the lease term had not expired, this court looked to whether the landlord acted unreasonably in bringing a second unlawful detainer action based on the lease provision that the tenant had to sublet to a subsidiary. The tenant had notice of the landlord’s position that the intended sublease was a breach of the primary lease and had allowed the tenant 30 days to either rescind the sublease or clarify that the sublessee was a subsidiary. The tenant failed to take appropriate action to correct the breach. The landlord’s refusal to allow the sublease was not unreasonable or arbitrary. Having concluded that tenant rightfully possessed the leasehold and that the Landlord acted reasonably this court determines that the Landlord’s correspondence was in accordance with Provision 1.10 of the Primary Lease. It afforded tenant sufficient notice of the breach and allowed him thirty days to correct its position either by rescinding the sublease or by clarifying that the sublessee, was an affiliate of the tenant in which case the Landlord’s consent would not be required. (Primary Lease Provision 1.10. The Landlord is entitled to proceed on the second unlawful detainer action, because tenant failed to take appropriate action to correct the breach within thirty days.
Judgment:
This court entered judgment for the tenant in the first unlawful detainer action and entered for the landlord in the second unlawful detainer action.
Disclaimer:
These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content
Virginia Civil Litigants Criminal Fair Impartial Trial Jury Lawyers Attorneys
In Virginia, the right to trial by jury extends to civil litigants as well as those accused of a criminal offense. Va. Const. art. I, § 11, and Va. Code § 8.01-336. All parties to civil litigation are entitled to a fair and impartial trial by a jury of persons who stand indifferent in the cause.
It is very important to have the best criminal defense possible when facing a criminal charge.
The SRIS Law Group Virginia criminal defense attorneys can defend you against any type of criminal charge.
Our Virginia criminal defense lawyers have the experience to defend you against any type of criminal charge.
Contact a SRIS Law Group Virginia criminal defense lawyer in Virginia.
Non Compete Agreement Virginia Maryland Lawyers Attorneys
Non-Compete Law in Virginia and Maryland
Non-compete agreements are often contained in an employment agreement or independent contractor agreement, but may also be executed as a separate document. Non-compete agreements are intended to ensure that during the term of employment or for a period thereafter, an employee or former employee will not directly compete with his or her employer. The non-compete agreement often contains provisions intended to prevent former employees from using proprietary information obtained during the employment relationship to appropriate their former employer’s customers at the expense of their former employer. Most non-compete agreements specify a period during which the former employee is expected to refrain from engaging in activities that will place him or her in direct competition with a former employer. Not all provisions contained in non-compete agreements are lawful – the validity of each provision is determined by state law.
Many employment or business relationships require that one of the parties agree not to compete with the other in a certain territory or for a certain time. The courts of law will sometimes uphold such agreements, and sometimes not. Advice from a qualified Virginia or Maryland non compete attorney is essential in this area. If you require assistance with a covenant not to compete or a non-compete agreement, either in negotiating or drafting such an agreement or in litigating such a dispute in Virginia or Maryland, the non compete attorneys of the SRIS Law Group, P.C. will bring their understanding of competition law to bear in aggressively assisting you with your case.
FACTS:
A corporation filed its amended motion for judgment against a doctor, alleging that the doctor, the corporation’s former employee, breached a covenant not to compete. After the Circuit Court of Campbell County (Virginia) denied the doctor’s motion to dismiss, and following a bench trial, a judgment was entered in favor of the corporation. The doctor appealed. He asserted that the former corporation cannot “engage in the practice of medicine” in Virginia because it does not have a license to practice medicine in this Commonwealth. As a consequence, he contends that the former corporation does not have a legitimate business interest in enforcing the covenant not to compete.
Click on above link to read more.
FACTS:
The former employee went to work for a competitor. Sometime during his employment with the employer, the employer presented a confidentiality and covenant not to compete agreement, which prohibited the former employee from working for a competing business within a 75-mile radius of the employer’s principal place of business for one year after leaving, subject to a liquidated damages provision of $ 50,000 in the event of a breach. The employer paid $ 50 to the former employee for signing the agreement. After a bench trial, the trial court awarded the employer nominal damages of one dollar, rejecting the employer’s argument that it was entitled to liquidated damages pursuant to the terms of agreement. Appellant employer challenged the judgment of the Circuit Court for Montgomery County (Maryland) in favor of appellee, a former employee. The employer had filed a breach of contract action against the former employee, seeking to recover liquidated damages based upon the terms of an employment contract.
Click on above link to read more.
8:00 AM – 12:00 AM Midnight
VA & MA Civil Litigation Lawyer
