Skip to main content

William F. Hunt v. Veropele Nashville I, LLC

Tenn. Ct. App.August 18, 2015No. M2014-01046-COA-R3-CV

Case Details

Judge(s)
Presiding Judge Frank G. Clement, Jr.
Status
Published
Procedural Posture
bench trial

Excerpt

This appeal arises from competing claims by a landlord and tenant that the other breached their commercial lease agreement. Less than one year after entering into a five year lease, tenant vacated the premises declaring that landlord had materially breached Paragraphs 10 and 29 of the lease by, inter alia, refusing to make ADA accessibility improvements that tenant insists were required for tenant to obtain a use and occupancy permit. After tenant vacated the premises, landlord commenced this action alleging that tenant breached the lease by vacating the premises and refusing to pay rent (a) without justification, (b) based upon an unreasonable ultimatum, (c) before landlord could submit code compliant architectural plans to the Department of Codes and (d) before the Department of Codes could make a determination regarding the necessity of making ADA accessibility improvements. Tenant responded by asserting claims for breach of the lease, fraudulent misrepresentation, and violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. Following a four-day bench trial, the court found that tenant breached the lease by vacating the premises without justification and failing to pay rent, and awarded landlord damages for breach in the amount of $90,342 and attorney's fees. The trial court dismissed the remainder of tenant's claims. Finding no error, we affirm and remand for the trial court to award landlord its reasonable and necessary attorney's fees incurred on appeal.

What This Ruling Means

This case involved a dispute between a business tenant and their landlord over required disability accessibility improvements under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). **What Happened:** A business signed a five-year lease but left the property after less than one year. The tenant claimed the landlord violated their lease agreement by refusing to make ADA accessibility improvements that were needed for the business to get proper permits to operate. The landlord then sued the tenant for breaking the lease early, while the tenant argued the landlord's failure to make the required accessibility improvements justified leaving. **What the Court Decided:** The Tennessee Court of Appeals sent the case back to the lower court for further review, meaning they didn't make a final decision on who was right. The court determined that more facts needed to be established before ruling on whether either party breached the lease agreement. **Why This Matters for Workers:** This case highlights how ADA compliance affects workplaces. When employers lease business spaces, disputes over who is responsible for making buildings accessible can impact whether a business can operate legally. Workers with disabilities benefit when these accessibility requirements are properly enforced, as it helps ensure their workplaces meet federal disability accommodation standards.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.