(Part 1) Today’s case is Level One Contact, Inc. v. BJL Enterprises, LLC. A lease agreement is an “instrument of indebtedness” that limits recovery of attorney’s fees by a claimant under the contract. A portion of the opinion in the Level One case stands for the same principle.
Today’s case is Terrell v. Griffith, in which the Court of Appeals reaffirmed the statutory requirement that a demand for possession must be made before the dispossessory action is filed. The Court also explicitly clarified that the failure to make a pre-suit demand for possession cannot be cured after the dispossessory action is filed; rather,
Today’s case is Albert Properties, Inc. v. Watkins. This case stands for the proposition that the landlord is not entitled to interfere with the tenant’s right to enjoy the premises, even if the tenant has violated the lease in some way (e.g., by failing to pay rent), except by use of the legal process. If
Today’s case is Meek v. Mallory and Evans, Inc. In this relatively recent decision, the Court of Appeals reaffirmed that there is a difference between a “renewal” of a lease agreement, as opposed to an “extension” of a lease agreement. Specifically, a “renewal” contemplates the execution of a new contract, whereas an “extension” does not
Today’s case is Barrett v. Britt. There is a general rule that says improvements to land belong to the landlord, but as with most general rules, the parties are free to agree otherwise. In the Barrett case, Hughes agreed Britt could keep certain trade fixtures associated with the cattle ranch which Britt was operating on