There’s a whole lot more drama to the Highland Village Tootsies shutdown battle than just that little overnight lockout, jackhammered walkway, and side-door goodbye sale customers got to enjoy late last week: The Chron‘s Purva Patel reports Tootsies sought a restraining order against the Highland Village Shopping Center, claiming the center was “interfering with its business.” Oh, but that was only after the landlord began eviction proceedings against the women’s clothing boutique on January 4th, a full 5 days after the long-term lease on its only Houston store expired.
The store paid rent of $159,834 at December’s end, but Highland Village plans to return the money, according to court records. The store plans to send it again.
Swamplot photographer Candace Garcia has pics of the scene in front the store at 4045 Westheimer from Saturday morning, just as workers were beginning to scrape off what sure looks like a fresh coat of black paint from the store’s windows. Oh, but that’s not all the trouble Highland Village CEO Haidar Barbouti‘s merry band of graffiti artists caused for its extended tenant. Painted over, and possibly beyond recovery: those “Tootsies Parking” signs on the curb in front!
***
Red cones were still placed around a section of the front terrazzo walkway that had been jackhammered away, highlighting what appears to be a quick concrete repair job:
Can landlord and tenant patch things up too? Patel notes in an update that the dispute has now been resolved “in Tootsies’ favor.” All the black paint has been removed, and the stores’ closing sale will continue until the end of the month. A Tootsies spokesperson promises the store will move — then.
- Highland Village and Tootsies go to court over eviction [Prime Property]
- Previously on Swamplot: Highland Village Lockout Drama: Step Away from the Tootsies!
Photos: Candace Garcia
I don’t understand how tenants can just choose to stay at the end of their lease if the landlord doesn’t renew. I mean, if a tenant decides they want to LEAVE at the end of their lease, it’s not like the landlord can force them to stay.
.
If the landlord chose not to renew and the tenant is still there, then they’re trespassing as far as I’m concerned. The Landlord should have just gotten a bunch of new clothes.
Cody,
While it was poor planning on Tootsies part to let their lease come to expiration with their new building not complete, the landlord can’t just call the police to come in, break the locks and throw the merchandise out on the street. Nor would that be a good precedent to set. The legal system exists to settle these disputes.
$160K in rent? Are you SERIOUS?!
From Cody:
I don’t understand how tenants can just choose to stay at the end of their lease if the landlord doesn’t renew. I mean, if a tenant decides they want to LEAVE at the end of their lease, it’s not like the landlord can force them to stay.
.
If the landlord chose not to renew and the tenant is still there, then they’re trespassing as far as I’m concerned. The Landlord should have just gotten a bunch of new clothes.
_____________________________
Nothing like a landlord who believes the law doesn’t apply to him. You might want to read the Texas Property Code.
I wonder if the Tootsies folks are kicking themselves after seeing how cheep the Books a Million downtown is going for… If I were them I would give the Pavillions a call… pretty sure the rent would be convered in 2-3 sales a month.
You mean to tell me that the landlord thought that they can get more than the $160K for the use of the property during January. That would be the only reason to give it back and not want the deal with the Tenant. Looks to be poor management on the landlord’s part.
At least with residential leases I’ve been a party to, when a lease ends with no specific termination, it automatically renews month-to-month, meaning tenant or landlord can terminate it at any time, but only with 30 days notice. If I’m your landlord, and your lease ends 12/31, and you don’t tell me of your intent to vacate, you owe rent for January, since I assume you want to stay another month. Conversely, I can’t then kick you out on 1/5. I can tell you on 1/5 I want you out on 2/5, but that’s it.
MM/Lost: I’m well aware of the property code. I’m well aware of several laws that, while I disagree with them, still follow.
Dave: Most residential leases convert to a month to month after the stated term has expired. Also, most have a check mark option for the notice both parties must give the other. One option is for 30 days from the date give, the other is from 30 days AFTER the current month (more typical)
.
So if you give notice the end of December, the lease is up January. But wait till Jan 1, and the lease isn’t up util the end of Feb.
From Cody:
So if you give notice the end of December, the lease is up January. But wait till Jan 1, and the lease isn’t up util the end of Feb.
__________________________
It depends on what the contract says but most people give 30 days notice when they pay the rent for the last month regardless of what the contract says. I guess some landlords would love to clip the tenant for another month’s rent because the 30 day notice wasn’t given on the last day of the month preceding the 30 day notice. Most just accept the 30 day notice. Even if it’s a day late. Most landlords know the tenant is going to move anyway when the new landlord calls to check the reference. The old landlord can say they didn’t give 30 day notice. But if they only have one month remaining on the lease the new landlord will assume they will give the 30 day notice and pay the last month’s rent. Very few tenants give 30 day notice and then go looking for a new apartment.
whine garden sux. they play the game the way they see fit. The rules DO NOT apply to them, see Shepherd and Gray boo boo about the balcony, as in the past they will suck seed. Too bad for Toosties, they should have pressed West Ave people from the gitgo to work faster and harder to make the project a booming achievement here in town.
Imagine being the landlord… your long term tenant elects not to renew and you have months and months of notice. You use that time to make your plans, engage an architect, hire builders and contractors, get financing, and maybe even sign up some future tenants. Then your tenant hijacks the entire process by unilaterally deciding to stick around and assert some kind of property rights. Is Tootsie’s going to pay damages associated with the owner’s lost time? What if the future rent is higher than Tootsie’s current rent? There are more considerations than just Tootsie’s plans.
that would be a dumb thing to do for a landlord if your tenant still has a legal right to occupy. if you’re going to run a business these days you absolutely have to do your due dilligence to understand all the rules and know when the law is in your favor. a business doesn’t become successful unless you account for all the risks, and i don’t think of any of us could possibly feel pity for a multi-million dollar real estate company failing to properly evaluate these kind of risks.
Joel – It should make no difference whether the developer has a lot of money or not. I suspect that if the developer (or apartment owner, to put it closer to home for you) dramatically increased the rent to “account for the risk” of a tenant flouting its lease, you would be against that as well and would excoriate the greedy real estate developer for “unfairly” charging its tenants. In any case:
1. I do feel pity for the landlord in this case.
2. I also feel pity for the other tenants, who will face higher rents to “account for the ris,” and also the contractors and customers who have to wait / alter their plans.
3. Not that it matters, but everyone in this story probably has a lot of money (or is about to go bust – you never know).
no, i don’t see any real problems with it. a risk study is a usual part of budgeting, but probably not so much for commercial real estate as the risks are fewer. i have no problem with landlords increasing prices to account for any costs they see fit (be it unruly tenants, luxury company cars or swiss bank accounts) but of course they have binding contracts that they all follow and tenants will have the oppurtunity to seek out better deals and move with their pocketbooks before any dramatic price increases take effect. this is where the market does it’s magic. i really don’t know the any of the laws for this stuff, but moral standing by itself does not hold up in court.
1. this was probably no big deal for any of these folks
2. eh, they all have contracts and could move if they so choose / future tenants would be wrong to put all their eggs in one basket too.
3. a well-planned bankruptcy could provide for both
disclaimer: i’m both a landlord and a tenant.