The Leasing Hotline

Pearland moved for summary judgment based on the estoppel agreement. The trial court granted the motion and granted all relief to Pearland, but did not specify the grounds on which it rendered its judgment. The appellate court reversed. It held that a trial court improperly renders a no-evidence summary judgment if the non-movant presents more than a scintilla of probative evidence to raise a genuine issue of material fact. Here, the facts presented by Lewis showed that heavy smoke entered the premises; there were ongoing insect and rodent issues; the air conditioning and heating system were inadequate; and there were mold formations on a back concrete wall.

Issues Surrounding Implied Warranty of Suitability Bar Summary Judgment

A tenant estoppel agreement stating that the tenant found no existing default on the lease is not, in and of itself, grounds for summary judgment in favor of the landlord where issues of fact exist surrounding the implied warranty of suitability of the lease. Lewis et al. v. Pearland Plaza Partners, No. 01-04-00419-CV, Court of Appeals of Texas, First District, Houston, Aug. 17, 2006.

Lewis and Pearland entered into a lease commencing in June 1998. Seven months after the original lease was executed, Lewis signed a Tenant Estoppel Agreement stating that at the time of execution, there were no existing defaults on the lease. Lewis and her corporation occupied the premises for three years and then abandoned the premises and failed to pay rent to Pearland through the end of the lease term. Pearland commenced an action against Lewis for breach of contract. Lewis answered by stating that Pearland's claims were barred by: 1) failure of consideration, 2) failure to mitigate any alleged damages, 3) the statute of frauds, and 4) Pearland's breach of its implied warranty of suitability for intended purposes in a commercial lease.

Pearland moved for summary judgment based on the estoppel agreement. The trial court granted the motion and granted all relief to Pearland, but did not specify the grounds on which it rendered its judgment. The appellate court reversed. It held that a trial court improperly renders a no-evidence summary judgment if the non-movant presents more than a scintilla of probative evidence to raise a genuine issue of material fact. Here, the facts presented by Lewis showed that heavy smoke entered the premises; there were ongoing insect and rodent issues; the air conditioning and heating system were inadequate; and there were mold formations on a back concrete wall.