Ask DrewDevil your legal questions

[DrewDevil]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

If you really want to get some money out of these business, have someone kill you in the parking lot, then your estate can sue the bar.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know you spoke in jest, but exactly what legal theory would you plan on using here?

[/ QUOTE ]

Premises liability, see page 1 of this thread.

[DrewDevil]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

While she understood that she had to pay for the original sign, the owner initiated and desired the remodel (probably to help fill some vacant locations) and removed her sign that she was completely satisfied to keep. She doesn't think she should have to pay for the new sign.

Does she have any legal ground to require them to pay for some/all of her new sign costs?

[/ QUOTE ]

Based on what you wrote, it sounds like the tenant has the option but not the duty to install a sign. Unless the lease requires the tenant to provide signage at the tenant's expense, then I don't see how the tenant has to pay for the new sign.

Also, where's the old sign? Tenant gets that back.

[/ QUOTE ]

I realize this is Drew's thread, but this question wandered into my arena.

Depending on property laws in your state the lessee often has no right to signage once installed. In many states, any physical improvements made to leased real property immediately become the property of the lessor (landlord). The purchase and installation of the sign is generally considered a "leasehold improvement", is considered part of the physical structure and as such becomes the property of the landlord.

It kind of sucks, but the lessee might well be out of luck.


*And just in case anyone might wonder what business I have weighing in here, I'm an Assessor (property tax) in Michigan.*

[/ QUOTE ]

That's probably all true, but it still doesn't mean the tenant has to pay for a new sign of LL's choosing.

[VoraciousReader]

Restaureteur confirmed today: landlord has thrown away her sign and when she called to discuss with him, he angrily told her that it was her problem and she just needed to buy a new sign.

Consult an attorney?

[Hey_Porter]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

If you really want to get some money out of these business, have someone kill you in the parking lot, then your estate can sue the bar.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know you spoke in jest, but exactly what legal theory would you plan on using here?

[/ QUOTE ]

Premises liability, see page 1 of this thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yea, I get the premises liability part, I just didn't understand how your little fact pattern, without more, imposed liability. I know it was in jest, but in an "ask your legal questions" thread we might as well be passing along accurate information.

[DrewDevil]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

If you really want to get some money out of these business, have someone kill you in the parking lot, then your estate can sue the bar.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know you spoke in jest, but exactly what legal theory would you plan on using here?

[/ QUOTE ]

Premises liability, see page 1 of this thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yea, I get the premises liability part, I just didn't understand how your little fact pattern, without more, imposed liability. I know it was in jest, but in an "ask your legal questions" thread we might as well be passing along accurate information.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, aren't we snippy? What is it you don't understand about how the doctrine of premises liability imposes liability? The classic premises liability case is someone getting mugged in the parking lot of a 7-11, and suing 7-11 for failure to warn/remedy an unsafe condition.

[DrewDevil]

[ QUOTE ]
Restaureteur confirmed today: landlord has thrown away her sign and when she called to discuss with him, he angrily told her that it was her problem and she just needed to buy a new sign.

Consult an attorney?

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe--if the lease specifies that the sign becomes LL's property, then she probably doesn't have much recourse. She should probably submit a sign [b]design[/i] for his approval and not buy it unless he approves.

[Hey_Porter]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

If you really want to get some money out of these business, have someone kill you in the parking lot, then your estate can sue the bar.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know you spoke in jest, but exactly what legal theory would you plan on using here?

[/ QUOTE ]

Premises liability, see page 1 of this thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yea, I get the premises liability part, I just didn't understand how your little fact pattern, without more, imposed liability. I know it was in jest, but in an "ask your legal questions" thread we might as well be passing along accurate information.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, aren't we snippy? What is it you don't understand about how the doctrine of premises liability imposes liability? The classic premises liability case is someone getting mugged in the parking lot of a 7-11, and suing 7-11 for failure to warn/remedy an unsafe condition.

[/ QUOTE ]

Calm down, I wasn't being snippy (or meaning to be). I just think it's important to know that just because you are mugged in a parking lot doesn't mean there is liability. "Failure to warn/remedy an unsafe condition" requires a certain level of foreseeability, which probably varies a bit state to state.

[Dazarath]

Hey Drew, a friend of mine has the following question:

"So I decided to sublet a room from my friend for the summer. The normal rate for the room is 650/mo but he offered it to me at a rate of 400/mo. I ended up living there for exactly 2.5 months. I definitely stated I wasn't going to live there for a full 3 months. I prepaid my first two and was planning to pay a pro-rated rate based on how long I live there during the 3rd month. So my friend calls me and tells me that he was off the lease exactly after the 2nd month and I am going to pay a different guy who was on the lease during that period. That guy wants me to pay 400 (for a full month even though I didn't live there the whole month.) - 55 dollar that the guy is going to "chip in", making it 345 for the half month. Half a month of the full rate is 325. So he wants me to pay more than half of the full rate of the rent. Also I have never talked to this guy, so I have never made a written or verbal contract agreeing to pay any certain amount for rent during the half month I lived there and he was on the lease. I don't think I should pay any more than 200 since I'm not even sure I'm liable for any rent.

Please tell me my best options."

[DrewDevil]

[ QUOTE ]
Hey Drew, a friend of mine has the following question:

"So I decided to sublet a room from my friend for the summer. The normal rate for the room is 650/mo but he offered it to me at a rate of 400/mo. I ended up living there for exactly 2.5 months. I definitely stated I wasn't going to live there for a full 3 months. I prepaid my first two and was planning to pay a pro-rated rate based on how long I live there during the 3rd month. So my friend calls me and tells me that he was off the lease exactly after the 2nd month and I am going to pay a different guy who was on the lease during that period. That guy wants me to pay 400 (for a full month even though I didn't live there the whole month.) - 55 dollar that the guy is going to "chip in", making it 345 for the half month. Half a month of the full rate is 325. So he wants me to pay more than half of the full rate of the rent. Also I have never talked to this guy, so I have never made a written or verbal contract agreeing to pay any certain amount for rent during the half month I lived there and he was on the lease. I don't think I should pay any more than 200 since I'm not even sure I'm liable for any rent.

Please tell me my best options."

[/ QUOTE ]

The best option is to tell the new guy that he should either accept the $200 or go [censored] himself.

You didn't have any agreement with him, a verbal sublease probably violates his lease and is not enforceable anyway, and who's going to sue you over $145?

You can also tell him your lawyer thinks he's a complete tool.

[FlyWf]

[ QUOTE ]

Calm down, I wasn't being snippy (or meaning to be). I just think it's important to know that just because you are mugged in a parking lot doesn't mean there is liability. "Failure to warn/remedy an unsafe condition" requires a certain level of foreseeability, which probably varies a bit state to state.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's no big deal, you just need to mug some people in that parking lot a few months ahead of time to build a pattern of violent crime.