Jury Must Decide if New Tenant's Parking Rights Violated Restaurant Tenant's Parking Rights

February 1, 2004

A lease gave a restaurant tenant the right to let its customers and employees use both the parking lot on its site and a neighboring tenant's parking lot. The lease also gave the tenant the right to terminate the lease if the amount of promised parking was reduced. The owner then bought a neighboring lot and signed a lease with a new tenant. The new tenant's lease gave it the right to let its customers and employees park anywhere on the three lots—which included the restaurant tenant's parking lot.

A lease gave a restaurant tenant the right to let its customers and employees use both the parking lot on its site and a neighboring tenant's parking lot. The lease also gave the tenant the right to terminate the lease if the amount of promised parking was reduced. The owner then bought a neighboring lot and signed a lease with a new tenant. The new tenant's lease gave it the right to let its customers and employees park anywhere on the three lots—which included the restaurant tenant's parking lot. The restaurant tenant sued the owner, arguing that the new tenant's parking rights violated its parking rights. The court dismissed the restaurant tenant's lawsuit, so it appealed.

A Michigan appeals court reinstated the lawsuit, ruling that a jury must decide if the new tenant's parking rights violated the restaurant tenant's parking rights. The court noted that the owner knew that parking was important to the restaurant tenant, yet it gave the new tenant the right to allow its customers and employees to park in the restaurant tenant's lot. A jury could find that although the restaurant tenant agreed to share parking with the existing neighboring tenant, it hadn't agreed to do so with the new tenant, the court said [Ovens, LLC v. Quality Acquisitions, LLC].

More like this