Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Failure to Litigate Issues at the Trial Level
Failure to litigate issues at the trial level may be fatal to a landlord's claim for lost rent payments. GMS Management Co., Inc. v. Nguyen, C.A. No. 08CA0014, Court of Appeals of Ohio, Ninth Appellate District, Wayne County, December 15, 2008.
After trial, it was determined that the tenant was constructively evicted ' as a result of the landlord's failure to repair a leak in the leased premises ' and did not owe the rent for the balance of the lease. The trial court further held that the damages sought by the landlord amounted to an unenforceable penalty and that the tenant did not have to pay the balance of the rent payments as a result of the constructive eviction due to its failure to repair the leak. The appellate court affirmed and noted that the trial between the parties was poorly litigated. It held it had to affirm because the landlord had forfeited most of its arguments by not making them at the trial level. The appellate court noted that at the trial level, the landlord failed to litigate a clause in the lease precluding the tenant from making a claim of constructive eviction. The landlord's failure to present that issue at the trial level was fatal to its ability to make the claim at the appellate level.
Failure to Litigate Issues at the Trial Level
Failure to litigate issues at the trial level may be fatal to a landlord's claim for lost rent payments. GMS Management Co., Inc. v. Nguyen, C.A. No. 08CA0014, Court of Appeals of Ohio, Ninth Appellate District, Wayne County, December 15, 2008.
After trial, it was determined that the tenant was constructively evicted ' as a result of the landlord's failure to repair a leak in the leased premises ' and did not owe the rent for the balance of the lease. The trial court further held that the damages sought by the landlord amounted to an unenforceable penalty and that the tenant did not have to pay the balance of the rent payments as a result of the constructive eviction due to its failure to repair the leak. The appellate court affirmed and noted that the trial between the parties was poorly litigated. It held it had to affirm because the landlord had forfeited most of its arguments by not making them at the trial level. The appellate court noted that at the trial level, the landlord failed to litigate a clause in the lease precluding the tenant from making a claim of constructive eviction. The landlord's failure to present that issue at the trial level was fatal to its ability to make the claim at the appellate level.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?