940 OCEAN DRIVE, LLC V. SOBE USA, LLC, (FLA. DIST. CT. APP. JAN. 2025)
CLAIMS: In 2020, the Tenant, a nightclub and bar owner, sued Landlord, which also operated hotels on each side of the Tenant’s bar, alleging that Landlord undertook actions to constructively evict Tenant so that Landlord could then rent the premises on better terms and that Landlord engaged in harassment, defamation, and tortious interference, to drive Tenant out of business.
EVIDENCE: Landlord produced a City of Miami Notice of Code violation for noise levels, alleging noise violations as basis for breach. In response to discovery, Landlord produced a spreadsheet of names of guests complaining about noise, and details of such. A particular guest, Mr. Plisko, was identified prominently as complaining of excessive noise, and as having evidence of the violations. However, Tenant’s investigations revealed through code official’s body cam footage that most noise complaints on most dates came from Plisko. Further inquiry revealed that Plisko was a private investigator hired by Landlord and not a paying guest and that Plisko had been hired at least seven times to make noise complaints. Indeed, the Landlord had intentionally put Plisko in rooms directly above the Tenant’s band sound stage on busy weekends and holidays. Plisko often extensively lied to code officers about many details and cracked open the windows unnoticeably when code officials arrived so that the noise would be louder.
COURT RULING: The Court rules in favor of the Tenant on overwhelming evidence on all counts. The Court awards Tenant $122,698 in compensatory damages, and $2,163,575 in attorneys’ fees and costs, but overturns a $17,444,738 punitive damages award because the Tenant did not present any evidence establishing its entitlement to punitive damages. Tenant wins.
SENTER V. KOSCIUSKO CNTY. BD. OF ZONING APPEALS, (IND. CT. APP. JAN. 2025)
CLAIMS: Landowner sued County zoning Board that granted his request to use his property as a marina but denied his request to conduct retail sales of gasoline on the marina property.
EVIDENCE: Landowner owned property that abutted a water channel connecting to a lake. The property was already zoned for commercial use. In 2023 the Landowner applied for a special exception to operate a marina on the property and sell gasoline to boaters. At the zoning hearings, 140 neighbors protested and asserted risks of explosion, the smell of gasoline fumes, the attraction of additional boaters, and spilling of gasoline. The Board unanimously agreed to approve the special exception to allow the marina but with the conditions that no fuel sales were allowed and that the newly installed gasoline tanks be removed from the property. Landowner sued and argued that there was no requirement of him to obtain approval to sell gas in addition to approval of a marina in a commercial-zoned property.
COURT RULING: The Court focused on the rights already provided in the existing commercial zoning, and whether that covered gasoline sales. The zoning code provided that the Commercial District allowed for “retail or service uses” and “retail businesses.” Reviewing the zoning code in its plain and ordinary meaning, the Court looked at dictionaries to define “retail,” and found definitions such as “to sell in small quantities directly to the ultimate consumer” and “the sale of commodities or goods in small quantities to ultimate consumers (Merriam Webster Dictionary). Therefore, the Court ruled that the sale of gasoline to boaters was retail in nature and thus already provided to the Landowner under Commercial use, and thus overturned the zoning Board’s denial. Landowner wins.
REMINGTON V. WILD BILL'S CAMPGROUND & RESORT, LLC, (S. DAKOTA SUP. CT., JAN. 2025)
CLAIMS: Campground purchasers brought action against Seller and real estate agent alleging various claims relating to defects discovered on property after closing.
EVIDENCE: : In 2017, the Remington’s were nearing retirement and thought it would be fun to own an RV park. They found Wild Bill’s Campground, including thirteen acres, ninety-eight campsites, eighty-four firepits, two drive bridges, and a main building. Inside the main building were living quarters and a bar and restaurant with an attached deck. The campground was located in a commercially zoned area and was listed under the “Business/Industry” classification. Seller put it under contract with terms of an “as-is” sale, and Remington did no inspections. After closing, problems arose, such as: the basement of the main building with residence leaked and had mold; the restaurant deck encroached onto adjacent street right of way; received notice from local fire marshal that firepits were against code; and two motorhomes fell through the bridges even though Seller had said bridges have “recently been rebuilt.” Discovery found that Seller knew of the basement water and mold issues, had received written governmental notice of the deck encroachment, was aware of firepit violations, and had rebuilt the bridges seven and nine years earlier. Remington sued for violation of residential condition disclosure laws and other claims.
COURT RULING: The Court wrestled with this case of first impression as to whether a residential property that is fully enveloped inside a commercial property requires a residential property disclosure statement. Undisputedly a property disclosure statement is required for residential property. And undisputedly a commercial property can be sold as-is without disclosures. The Court analyzed the state’s statute and determined that the residential property disclosure statement was applicable to the sale of any real property containing four or fewer family dwelling units contained in one structure, and thus it applied to the main building living quarters, and thus the water and mold issues had to be disclosed. Winchesters win.
