Landlord Is Entitled to Limited Additional Rent Due to Statute of Limitations
On April 9, the Pennsylvania Superior Court held that a commercial landlord was entitled to recover certain portions of unpaid additional rent under a lease agreement but limited the landlord's recovery based on the statute of limitations.
April 26, 2019 at 02:00 PM
6 minute read
On April 9, the Pennsylvania Superior Court held that a commercial landlord was entitled to recover certain portions of unpaid additional rent under a lease agreement but limited the landlord's recovery based on the statute of limitations. While the decision was nonprecedential, the case provides helpful guidance to practitioners in determining when claims for rent should be brought against a tenant in a commercial lease agreement and emphasizes the importance of timely filing any claims under a lease agreement for unpaid rent.
In Tsung Tsin Association v. Luen Fong Produce, a landlord alleged that its commercial tenant, a grocery store in Philadelphia's Chinatown, failed to pay additional rent as required under the lease agreement. In 1995, the landlord and the tenant entered into a multiyear commercial lease agreement that required the tenant to pay the landlord for additional rent, including increases in property taxes, use and occupancy taxes, and water, sewer, and gas expenses. The landlord and the tenant then entered into a new lease agreement in 2003, which was determined by the court to supplant the original lease agreement and govern the relationship between the parties in the dispute. Notably, the new lease agreement only required the tenant to pay increases in property taxes and use and occupancy taxes. Payment of water and sewer expenses were only required if certain conditions under the lease agreement were met.
The landlord sued the tenant on June 6, 2015, in the Philadelphia Municipal Court, alleging breach of the lease agreement in connection with the tenant's failure to pay 12 years' worth of additional rent. After the landlord prevailed, the tenant appealed to the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, claiming that the four-year statute of limitations for contract claims in Pennsylvania barred the landlord's suit. The trial court partially agreed with the tenant and limited the landlord's damages to the period between the date that was four years prior to the date the landlord filed suit and the date the suit was filed. After the landlord presented evidence of the alleged additional rent owed, the jury found that the tenant breached the lease agreement and awarded $38,558 in damages to the landlord.
The tenant appealed the jury's decision and award to the Superior Court. The Superior Court reviewed the tenant's claims that the statute of limitations barred the landlord's suit, the landlord failed to establish a prima facie case of breach of contract, and the trial should have molded the trial verdict consistent with the trial evidence.
|Statute of Limitations
The tenant argued that the four-year statute of limitations barred any suit brought by the landlord after June 2007, because the statute of limitations began running when the tenant first failed to pay additional rent under the 2003 lease agreement. The Superior Court disagreed with the tenant and found that the statute of limitations only barred claims for any failure to pay additional rent prior to the tenant's breach in 2011. The court reasoned that each one of the tenant's failures to pay the additional rent since 2003 constituted a new breach, subject to a four-year statute of limitations under contract law in Pennsylvania. Because the landlord brought its suit within the four-year statute of limitations after the tenant's breach in 2011, the Superior Court affirmed the trial court in holding that the landlord could pursue claims for the tenant's failures to pay additional rent that occurred four years prior to the date of the suit.
|Prima Facie Case
The tenant also argued that the landlord failed to establish a prima facie case of breach of contract for the alleged nonpayment of additional rent. In partially affirming the trial court, the Superior Court concluded that the landlord established a prima facie case with respect to the tenant's failure to pay the increases in property taxes from 2011 to 2015, because the lease agreement expressly required the tenant to pay the excess taxes and the landlord presented sufficient evidence that the tenant failed to do so. However, the Superior Court overturned the trial court in holding that the landlord failed to establish its breach of contract claims for the other forms of additional rent because the conditions applicable to those obligations were not met, the tenant provided sufficient evidence that it paid the use and occupancy taxes as required under the lease agreement, and the 2003 lease agreement did not require the tenant to pay gas expenses.
|Molding the Verdict Consistent With the Trial Evidence
Finally, the Superior Court evaluated the tenant's claim that the trial court should have molded the jury's award in accordance with the evidence presented at trial. The court agreed with the tenant and reduced the jury's award to $19,523.90, representing the owed increases in property taxes from 2011 to 2015—the only form of additional rent to which the court determined the landlord was entitled.
|Practice Tips
Even though the landlord in Tsung Tsin was able to recover the portion of the unpaid additional rent for the four-year period preceding the date of the lawsuit, the landlord could not recover the entirety of the unpaid amount due to its delay in filing suit. Attorneys representing commercial landlords should advise their clients to timely bring any claims for unpaid rent to preserve such claims and avoid a statute of limitations defense. On the tenant side, practitioners should consider negotiating a limitation on a landlord's ability to recover stale unpaid additional rent if the landlord fails to bill a tenant after a certain period of time.
Igor Pleskov is an associate in Saul Ewing Arnstein & Lehr's real estate, environmental and energy department focusing on all aspects of transactional real estate law. He can be reached at [email protected].
Ian M. Livaich is an associate in the firm's real estate, environmental and energy department focusing on all aspects of transactional real estate law. He can be reached at [email protected].
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllSupreme Court's Ruling in 'Students for Fair Admissions' and Its Impact on DEI Initiatives in the Workplace
6 minute readMembership Has Its Privileges: Bankruptcy Court Examines LLC's Authority to File Bankruptcy
8 minute readEmployment Issues for Employers to Consider When Implementing Return-to-Work Mandates
8 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Judicial Ethics Opinion 24-58
- 2Sweet James Clinches $17.4M Personal Injury Jury Verdict in California's Kings County
- 3In Lame-Duck Session, US Senate Confirms Illinois Federal Judge on Bipartisan Vote
- 4Gordon Rees Opens 80th Office, ‘Collaboration Hub’ in Palo Alto
- 5The White Stripes Drop Copyright Claim Against Trump Campaign
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250