Lease Is Unenforceable Because It Didn't Address Payment of TIA

November 1, 2003

A gym tenant leased space in a center that was still under construction. After signing the lease, the tenant and owner started negotiating the amount of the tenant's tenant improvement allowance (TIA) but failed to reach an agreement. So no improvements were made, and the tenant never paid rent. The owner sued the tenant for violating the lease. The tenant argued that the owner was obligated to pay for its TIA, which it failed to do.

A gym tenant leased space in a center that was still under construction. After signing the lease, the tenant and owner started negotiating the amount of the tenant's tenant improvement allowance (TIA) but failed to reach an agreement. So no improvements were made, and the tenant never paid rent. The owner sued the tenant for violating the lease. The tenant argued that the owner was obligated to pay for its TIA, which it failed to do.

A Utah appeals court ruled that the lease was ambiguous and thus unenforceable because it didn't address the payment of the TIA and the court couldn't determine the center's and tenant's intent regarding the payment of the TIA [Nielson v. Gold's Gym].

More like this