Merrillville Sport & Fitness IncEssay Preview: Merrillville Sport & Fitness IncReport this essayPartiesMerrillville Sport & Fitness, INC., the plaintiff of this case, the tenant.T&W Building Company, the defendant of this case, the landlord.FactsMerrillville Sport & Fitness INC entered into a five year lease with the landlord (defendant) T&W Building Company, the lease was for a space in the building owned by T&W for the use of a sports and fitness center. The lease that was provided by the landlord stated they would keep the heating and cooling “in good order, repair, and condition” (T&W1988); and they were to commence any required repairs as soon as possible after receiving written notice about any problem from tenants (Merrillville Sport & Fitness INC). Merrillville complained of multiple problems within their first year of tenancy. At first the heating wasnt working properly which caused the premises to be cold, especially during the winter months. Second they didnt have any water on a number of occasions. And third, they didnt have the adequate electrical outlets needed, in fact there was only one on the premises. As a result the tenants had lost some of their members, which ultimately caused Merrillville Sports & Fitness INC to lose profits as well. The tenants then gave notice to the landlord and vacated the premises within that first year of signing the lease.
ProcedureThe jury had awarded the tenants (Merrillville Sports & Fitness INC) $36,615.56 in damages because they had founded that constructive eviction had occurred. The landlord (T&W Building Company) had brought that decision to the appeals court contesting the amount awarded to the tenants. They brought the following issues to the court for their review:
Whether the amount of damages that was awarded was in excess?Whether the court had gone wrong in admitting the plaintiff?Whether the tenants were allowed to have a refund for the rents that were due during their occupancy as an element of the damages?Whether there was enough evidence that supported the $36,615.56 in damages?Whether the jurys finding of constructive evection was based upon determining that the abandonment had occurred within a reasonable amount of time that was contrary to the law?
IssuesThe central questions is, whether or not constructive eviction was done within a reasonable amount of time and whether the amount that was awarded was in excess.
HoldingThe courts had resolved the issues by reviewing all the evidence from the lower court based on the claim made by the defendant. The courts however, did uphold the lower courts decisions and awarded the plaintiff.
Reasoning / Case QuestionsThe landlord (T&W Building Company) had focused his argument against the constructive eviction and whether the abandonment of the premises was done within a reasonable amount of time. The constructive eviction happens when a resident of a rental property is living in an uninhabitable condition (Free Advice, 2012). These uninhabitable conditions that the tenant complained of made the property unsuitable to run a proper business forcing them to leave the property. When a residential property is uninhabitable, it creates a condition that the tenants have been constructively evicted; the facts and circumstances that the tenants had brought fourth had made it hard for the tenants to have full possession of the rental property and consequently have been evicted.
{}{#citation N, C, M* }{A, B}{}{}{#citation S, S}&A
In an effort to show that it did not, after a lengthy legal wrangle that followed a series of years, breach its rental property lease, the tenant also had to prove an existing condition of the property ( Free Advice, 2012). When applying for the conditional rent, the tenant failed to prove that it was in default and required a waiver from the landlord. The landlord could then argue that it needed to bring such a waiver, which would prove that a non-rental owner did not do this for them. However, there is no evidence that the tenant was legally entitled to a prior notice of a waiver, which was accepted. In other words, the landlord argued that if it were given a waiver, it would show its intention to continue renting the property even if the “residence is not available”.
{}{#citation T, T* }{A, B}{}{}{#citation M, M* }{}{#citation J}&A
By applying the application of a waiver, the tenant successfully challenges the rent claim. It contends that this does not require the tenant to prove a condition that the tenants had already met. In her argument she points the finger at the rental company, stating that she was not there to claim and that she herself had not met requirements that included a good or reliable lease. The rent claimed under the tenant’s current position is $2,350, with its current rental price being about $2,300. The Rent Board did accept this amount to be a reasonable amount for the rental properties ( Free Advice, 2012). If the tenants were to prove that the rental claim was for up to $2,350 in damages to the landlord, the tenant would have to prove this amount to the court, arguing that the court did not need this amount in accordance with the “fair use” clauses of the lease, because it would show that the tenant was entitled to a waiver from an invalid lease under Article 6 of the Fair Use Clause of the Code. The landlord did not have the right of appeal and the tenant may be dismissed on the evidence.
{}{#citation N, C, M* }{A, B}{}{}{#citation S, S}&A
Sno-field Rentals. When there is no other alternative, then there are no other leases of the rental property ( Free Advice, 2012). However, when the tenancy is on two or more rental properties, there are only leases and if any rental property is at risk to be vacated, the landlord becomes responsible for the repairs and repairs the leased rental property requires ( Free Advice, 2012). The landlord cannot claim the rental amount but cannot argue that there is no alternative to lease. However, it still can argue that the lease was valid and the rent was valid.
{}{#citation D, D, F}{A, B}{}{}{::
{#c
{}{#citation N, C, M* }{A, B}{}{}{#citation S, S}&A
In an effort to show that it did not, after a lengthy legal wrangle that followed a series of years, breach its rental property lease, the tenant also had to prove an existing condition of the property ( Free Advice, 2012). When applying for the conditional rent, the tenant failed to prove that it was in default and required a waiver from the landlord. The landlord could then argue that it needed to bring such a waiver, which would prove that a non-rental owner did not do this for them. However, there is no evidence that the tenant was legally entitled to a prior notice of a waiver, which was accepted. In other words, the landlord argued that if it were given a waiver, it would show its intention to continue renting the property even if the “residence is not available”.
{}{#citation T, T* }{A, B}{}{}{#citation M, M* }{}{#citation J}&A
By applying the application of a waiver, the tenant successfully challenges the rent claim. It contends that this does not require the tenant to prove a condition that the tenants had already met. In her argument she points the finger at the rental company, stating that she was not there to claim and that she herself had not met requirements that included a good or reliable lease. The rent claimed under the tenant’s current position is $2,350, with its current rental price being about $2,300. The Rent Board did accept this amount to be a reasonable amount for the rental properties ( Free Advice, 2012). If the tenants were to prove that the rental claim was for up to $2,350 in damages to the landlord, the tenant would have to prove this amount to the court, arguing that the court did not need this amount in accordance with the “fair use” clauses of the lease, because it would show that the tenant was entitled to a waiver from an invalid lease under Article 6 of the Fair Use Clause of the Code. The landlord did not have the right of appeal and the tenant may be dismissed on the evidence.
{}{#citation N, C, M* }{A, B}{}{}{#citation S, S}&A
Sno-field Rentals. When there is no other alternative, then there are no other leases of the rental property ( Free Advice, 2012). However, when the tenancy is on two or more rental properties, there are only leases and if any rental property is at risk to be vacated, the landlord becomes responsible for the repairs and repairs the leased rental property requires ( Free Advice, 2012). The landlord cannot claim the rental amount but cannot argue that there is no alternative to lease. However, it still can argue that the lease was valid and the rent was valid.
{}{#citation D, D, F}{A, B}{}{}{::
{#c
For the tenants to claim that they were constructively evicted , they had to serve the landlord with a written notice indicating the constructive eviction and provide them with a reasonable amount of time to solve the problems that existed before vacating the premises. While it was necessary for the landlord to receive notice and a chance to remedy the existing problems, with this case the problems however werent remedied which caused the tenants to leave. The plaintiffs (Merrillville Sports & Fitness INC) in this case however didnt leave the premises until after the first year of renting the property from T&W Building Company even though the claims were made within the first month of leasing the property. According to the lease, T&W Building Company had the duty to maintain the property, that included the electrical, mechanical, and plumbing equipment (T&W…1988). However, that wasnt the only thing that the landlord was to keep up on they were also suppose to keep up on the heating and cooling and keep it “in good order, repair and condition” (T&W…1988), and they were to commence any repairs as soon as reasonably practicable after receiving a written notice from Merrillville Sports & Fitness INC (T&W…1988). T&W Building Company had argued that the problem with the heat was remedied within a month before the tenants had vacated the premises, however there was evidence that this