I recently obtained summary judgment dismissing a multimillion dollar lawsuit involving a purported commercial real estate lease and purchase. My clients were an elderly woman living on the West Coast and a family trust for which she was co-trustee. The other co-trustee was her elderly husband. The property in question was a New Jersey warehouse owned by the trust where the plaintiff, a waste transport company, wished to operate its business.
According to plaintiff, the husband agreed to lease the property to plaintiff as tenant with an option to buy. However, the husband needed his wife’s consent, yet she knew nothing about the transaction. Among other things, the lease required the plaintiff to pay the rent to a third party, which allegedly was the husband’s girlfriend.
The plaintiff first did a title search which showed the owner of the warehouse as the husband and wife as co-trustees of the trust. Then plaintiff’s attorney prepared two different real estate purchase contracts for the warehouse with the co-trustees as the sellers and requiring both of their signatures. Then the husband said that he could not sell the property right away but would give a lease with an option to buy. Plaintiff’s attorney then prepared a lease showing the landlord as the husband as “trust representative”. The plaintiff and the husband then signed the lease and the plaintiff moved in, paying the rent to the alleged girlfriend of the husband.
A while later, plaintiff exercised the option to buy the warehouse but the husband refused. The husband then allegedly locked out the plaintiff. Ultimately the plaintiff moved out and started the lawsuit, filing a lien against the property and seeking damages and a court order to compel the sale of the property to the plaintiff.
During the plaintiff’s deposition, a lot of the claims asserted in its complaint were shown to be baseless. At the same time, plaintiff made some crucial admissions. The successful deposition was the cornerstone of the summary judgment motion.
It its decision, the court held that “there was no contract” between the parties because the lease did not contain the wife’s signature. The court noted that plaintiff knew from the title search that both co-trustees needed to sign, as reflected in the two contracts which its attorney had prepared. It also found that there was no apparent authority for the husband to act on behalf of the wife.
This case involved tough issues and required a strong and continuous focus over many months culminating in total victory which was greatly appreciated by my clients. As an experienced New Jersey trial lawyer. I have substantial real estate litigation experience so give me a call today to review your matter.
