Merrillville Sport & Fitness Inc

Parties

Merrillville Sport & Fitness, INC., the plaintiff of this case, the tenant.

T&W Building Company, the defendant of this case, the landlord.

Facts

Merrillville Sport & Fitness INC entered into a five year lease with the landlord (defendant) T&W Building Company, the lease was for a space in the building owned by T&W for the use of a sports and fitness center. The lease that was provided by the landlord stated they would keep the heating and cooling "in good order, repair, and condition" (T&W...1988); and they were to commence any required repairs as soon as possible after receiving written notice about any problem from tenants (Merrillville Sport & Fitness INC). Merrillville complained of multiple problems within their first year of tenancy. At first the heating wasn't working properly which caused the premises to be cold, especially during the winter months. Second they didn't have any water on a number of occasions. And third, they didn't have the adequate electrical outlets needed, in fact there was only one on the premises. As a result the tenants had lost some of their members, which ultimately caused Merrillville Sports & Fitness INC to lose profits as well. The tenants then gave notice to the landlord and vacated the premises within that first year of signing the lease.

Procedure

The jury had awarded the tenants (Merrillville Sports & Fitness INC) $36,615.56 in damages because they had founded that constructive eviction had occurred. The landlord (T&W Building Company) had brought that decision to the appeals court contesting the amount awarded to the tenants. They brought the following issues to the court for their review:

I. Whether the amount of damages that was awarded was in excess?

II. Whether the court had gone wrong in admitting the plaintiff?

III. Whether the tenants were allowed to have a refund for the rents that were due during their occupancy as an element of the damages?

IV. Whether there was enough evidence that supported the $36,615.56 in damages?

V. Whether the jury's finding of constructive evection was based upon determining that the abandonment had occurred within a reasonable amount of time that was contrary to the law?

Issues

The central questions is, whether or not constructive eviction was done within a reasonable amount of time and whether the amount that was awarded was in excess.

Holding

The courts had resolved the issues by reviewing all the evidence from the lower court based on the claim made by the defendant. The courts however, did uphold the lower courts decisions and awarded the plaintiff.

Reasoning / Case Questions

The landlord (T&W Building Company) had focused his argument against the constructive eviction and whether the abandonment of the premises was done within a reasonable amount of time. The constructive eviction happens when a resident of a rental property is living in an uninhabitable condition (Free Advice, 2012). These uninhabitable conditions that the tenant complained of made the property unsuitable to run a proper business forcing them to leave the property. When a residential property is uninhabitable, it creates a condition that the tenants have been 'constructively evicted'; the facts and circumstances that the tenants had brought fourth had made it hard for the tenants to have full possession of the rental property and consequently have been evicted.

For the tenants to claim that they were constructively evicted , they had to serve the landlord with a written notice indicating the constructive eviction and provide them with a reasonable amount of time to solve the problems that existed before vacating the premises. While it was necessary for the landlord to receive notice and a chance to remedy the existing problems, with this case the problems however weren't remedied which caused the tenants to leave. The plaintiffs (Merrillville Sports & Fitness INC) in this case however didn't leave the premises until after the first year of renting the property from T&W Building Company even though the claims were made within the first month of leasing the property. According to the lease, T&W Building Company had the duty to maintain the property, that included the electrical, mechanical, and plumbing equipment (T&W...1988). However, that wasn't the only thing that the landlord was to keep up on they were also suppose to keep up on the heating and cooling and keep it "in good order, repair and condition" (T&W...1988), and they were to commence any repairs as soon as reasonably practicable after receiving a written notice from Merrillville Sports & Fitness INC (T&W...1988). T&W Building Company had argued that the problem with the heat was remedied within a month before the tenants had vacated the premises, however there was evidence that this