Bennett & Belfort P.C.
The B&B Docket Blog
Developments in the Dynamic World
of Business and Employment Law

Archive for the ‘Commercial Evictions’ Category

Bennett & Belfort Obtains Jury Verdict on Behalf of Commercial Landlord

Posted on: January 3rd, 2019 by admin

On September 13, 2018, after three days of trial and almost five hours of deliberations, a Suffolk County jury found that Bennett & Belfort’s client, Michael Caruccio, Trustee of the Caruccio Family Trust, had proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant, Alves’ Boston TKD, LLC, breached the terms of their commercial lease agreement.  The jury also found that Plaintiff had proven that defendant, Manuel Jorge Alves, may be held personally liable for the contract breach committed by his company, Alves’ Boston TKD, LLC under a “piercing the corporate veil” theory.


The jury awarded the Plaintiff $87,765.05 in compensatory damages (the entire amount owed under the lease) plus $40,975.28 in attorney’s fees and costs, for a total judgment in the amount of $128,740.33.


Mr. Caruccio was represented at trial by Attorney Craig D. Levey.


Mr. Caruccio filed a complaint against his former tenant for unpaid rent stemming from occupancy at 7 Michael’s Mall, Winthrop, Massachusetts between 2005 and June 2013.  Plaintiff’s complaint included counts for: (1) Breach of Contract; (2) Quantum Meruit/Unjust Enrichment; (3) Promissory Estoppel; and (4) Piercing the Corporate Veil.


The jury’s finding that Plaintiff had successfully proven a case for “piercing the corporate veil” is incredibly rare.  The jury found that Bennett & Belfort, on behalf of the Plaintiff, had presented sufficient evidence at trial to disregard the corporate form of the defendant LLC to reach the assets of the individual defendant.  In particular, evidence was presented at trial that Mr. Alves had pervasive control of the LLC, intermingled personal and business assets, the LLC was thinly capitalized, observed almost no corporate formalities, and there was an absence of corporate records.



Posted on: May 2nd, 2012 by admin No Comments

A recent Massachusetts Appeals Court ruling highlights the importance of negotiating and drafting applicable damages provisions in commercial lease contracts.  When possible, landlords must seek a well-drafted liquidated damages provision in each commercial lease agreement, providing for the landlord’s ability to accelerate rent for the balance of the lease term in the event of a tenant default.  Conversely, tenants will want to eliminate or, at the very least, “water down” such a clause as much as possible. 

In 275 Washington Street Corp. v. Hudson River Intern., LLC, 81 Mass.App.Ct. 418, 963 N.E.2d 758 (2012) (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-038-12) the Appeals Court ruled that a commercial landlord whose tenant broke a 12 year lease after only 24 months, must wait until the expiration of the entire lease term before suing for damages.

The relevant commercial lease agreement had only a basic indemnification provision, entitling the landlord to be indemnified by the tenant for any losses that occurred as a result of the tenant’s breach of the lease agreement.  Noticeably absent from the lease was a liquidated damages clause, allowing the landlord, in the event of the tenant’s breach, to accelerate the balance of the unpaid rent owed by the tenant through the end of the lease term. 

Following the tenant’s default only 2 years into the 12 year lease agreement, the landlord re-entered the property and took possession of the commercial lease space.  Shortly thereafter, the landlord filed a breach of contract suit against the tenant, seeking unpaid rent for the balance of the 12 year lease term and other damages, including for money spent by the landlord on a build out sought by the tenant.  While the landlord’s breach of contract lawsuit against the former tenant was pending, the landlord entered into a 10 year lease agreement with a separate, replacement tenant for the same leased space.  The new lease term with the replacement tenant went beyond the original 12 year term, but was for less monthly rent.

Traditionally, the law has been that pursuant to a standard indemnification provision, a commercial landlord must wait until the end of the lease term to file suit to recover its damages.  The rationale for this law, is that an indemnification provision limits a landlord to recovery for those damages actually incurred.  Accordingly, if a lease term has not yet expired, the landlord’s damages technically remain unknown until the lease term expires. 

Originally, in 275 Washington Street Corp., the Superior Court awarded the landlord summary judgment, holding that because a replacement tenant was found, the landlord’s full damages were now known because the premises was currently rented.  The trial judge ruled that the landlord was entitled to immediately recover the difference between all unpaid rent through the balance of the 12 year lease term due to the original tenant’s default, less the rent the landlord expected from the replacement tenant. 

Unfortunately for the landlord, the Appeals Court overturned the Superior Court’s ruling, holding that because the indemnification agreement limited the landlord to reimbursement for losses actually incurred as a result of the tenant’s breach, and the full scope of the tenant’s breach could not be ascertained until the end of the lease term (notwithstanding the lease with the replacement tenant).  The court concluded that the landlord had to wait until the expiration of the lease term before calculating what its actual damages would be.  The landlord argued unsuccessfully, that because it secured a replacement tenant, its damages were fully ascertainable and it did not have to wait until the end of the 12 lease term.  The Appeals Court disagreed, finding that even though a replacement tenant was found, that replacement tenant could also default, thus making the landlord’s damages once again unknown until the end of the full lease term. 

Importantly, the Appeals Court noted that if the landlord’s commercial lease contract contained a liquidated damages provision, providing for the landlord’s ability to accelerate rent for the balance of the lease term in the event of the tenant’s default, the landlord would be able to secure damages through the end of the lease term by filing suit immediately.

Obviously, this ruling highlights the importance of proper language in a commercial lease contract.  Landlords will want to include a comprehensive liquidated damages provision, allowing them to accelerate rent through the balance of the lease term in the event of a tenant’s default.  Tenants will try to eliminate such lease provisions, or at least attempt to minimize the exposure they may incur.  There are several creative ways that tenants can attempt to negotiate such provisions.  However, ultimately, the ability to negotiate a commercial lease contract typically depends upon the commercial lease market (higher vacancy rates is often equated with flexible landlords), the personality and relative aggressiveness of the landlord and the amount of space and length of the tenant’s lease term (the larger the space and longer the lease term, the more bargaining power a tenant might have).

Bennett & Belfort, P.C. will strive to continue to update you on the varied developments in this rapidly evolving area of real estate litigation which significantly impacts commercial lease drafting and lease negotiations.


Posted on: December 6th, 2010 by admin No Comments

The Massachusetts Appeals Court recently held in 11-227-10 Cummings Properties, LLC v. Cepoint Networks, LLC, et al.,(Appeals Court, November 19, 2010 ), that the guarantor of a commercial lease agreement who was not in possession of the property, could not be named as a party to a summary process (eviction) case.  

Summary process is an expedited eviction procedure that can be brought in either district court (commercial or residential evictions) or housing court (residential evictions only).  In a summary process case, a landlord will typically get a trial in about 4-6 weeks; a relatively swift process.  Compare this abbreviated trial track to state Superior Court, where a litigant may wait up to 2 years or more to receive a trial date.  These delays are only getting worse as the Courts’ operating budgets are slashed and their staffs’ downsized.

The Appeals Court reasoned in the Cummings Properties case  that summary process is a statutory procedure that does not provide for a personal guarantor, who is not in possession of the property, to be named as a defendant.  Therefore, landlords who want to sue non-occupant personal guarantors in order to collect rent – or other monies owed- have to file a separate lawsuit seeking redress.  Requiring landlords to file a separate claim against personal guarantors who are not in possession of rented property, will undoubtedly result in a prolonged dispute and additional expense to both landlords and an already burdened court system.  However, some of the expenses landlords would incur to file suit against a personal guarantor may be mitigated through the filing of a motion to consolidate both the eviction lawsuit and the lawsuit against the personal guarantor into one unified action, however, it remains to be seen if this strategy will be well received by the Court.