Sample Cases
Tenant CAM Charge Dispute
The case at hand involves the assessment of a tenant’s claim for a refund of Common Area Maintenance (CAM) charges following a business failure and subsequent legal action against the landlord. The tenant entered into a long-term lease agreement, which included monthly CAM charges. After months of CAM charge payments, the tenant’s business suffered a downturn, prompting the tenant to request a refund of the CAM charges and initiate legal proceedings against the landlord.
Tenant CAM Charge Dispute
The case at hand involves the assessment of a tenant’s claim for a refund of Common Area Maintenance (CAM) charges following a business failure and subsequent legal action against the landlord. The tenant entered into a long-term lease agreement, which included monthly CAM charges. After months of CAM charge payments, the tenant’s business suffered a downturn, prompting the tenant to request a refund of the CAM charges and initiate legal proceedings against the landlord.
Real Estate Broker and Construction Defects
This case involves the intricate task of evaluating the allocation of responsibility and identifying potential sources for settling a complex legal matter. It centers around a developer’s purchase of a high-value property, facilitated by a broker who represented both the buyer and seller. Subsequently, the property was sold again for a higher price with the same broker’s dual representation. The buyer alleges construction defects and demands a repurchase.
Breach of Contract and Investment Distributions
This case revolves around addressing a plaintiff’s allegations of breach of contract and failure to receive their rightful share of distributions in a real estate investment partnership aimed at custom home construction. The limited partner had invested a substantial sum in the partnership, managed by the General Partner. However, the General Partner took excessive development fees, made amendments to the construction loan, and failed to distribute investments as agreed.
NNN Investment and Partnership Extension
The central issue in this case involves the General Partner’s proposal for a 35-year extension of the partnership and the Limited Partners’ reluctance to sign, potentially leading to the withholding of monthly distributions. The General Partner is seeking to extend the partnership for an additional 35 years while retaining 50% ownership and cash flow. The Limited Partners question the necessity of this extension and the 30-month advance notice provided by the General Partner. To pressure compliance, the General Partner threatens to cease monthly distributions.