Remodeling breaches restaurant lease. San Diego County.

Summary

Burger King restaurant owners remodel the building without landlord's consent.

Case Name: 6401 Balboa Avenue, LLC v California Food Management, LLC dba Burger King Store #736
Court and Case Number: San Diego Superior Court / 37-2016-00005798-CU-BC-CTL
Date of Verdict or Judgment: Friday, June 01, 2018
Date Action was Filed: Monday, February 22, 2016
Type of Case: Breach of Contract, Real Estate
Judge or Arbitrator(s): Hon. Eddie C. Sturgeon
Plaintiffs:
6401 Balboa Avenue, LLC
Defendants:
California Food Management, LLC dba Burger King Store #736
Type of Result: Jury Verdict

Attorney for the Plaintiff:
Steven L. Victor Attorney at Law, APC by Steven L. Victor, San Diego.
Attorney for the Defendant:
Mulvaney Barry Beatty Linn & Mayers LLP by Patrick Prindle and John Mayers, San Diego.

Plaintiff's Technical Expert(s):
Timothy DeLise, construction and cost of repair, Escondido.

James Eddington, roofing, Escondido.

George Dell, appraisals, San Diego.
Defendant's Technical Expert(s):
Robert Caringella, appraisals, San Diego.

Kevin Rugee, ADA architectural issues, Coronado.

Facts and Background:
Complaint for Breach of Lease and Waste arising from the occupancy of commercial premises for a Burger King Franchise. Defendant/tenant did not provide plans and specifications to plaintiff/landlord for review and approval before undertaking remodeling and improvements and demolishing and removing 10%, 348 square feet, of the building area of the premises.
Plaintiff's Contentions:
That plaintiff was not provided the opportunity to review plans and specifications for a remodeling project and was never asked to consent to same. That defendant undertook to remodel the premises despite the mandatory language of the lease requiring written consent and approval before taking such actions.

Also, that the work performed was done in a shoddy and poor workmanlike manner and failed to follow the unauthorized plans defendant submitted to the City of San Diego. The cost of repairs was $351,592.91. The damage to the reversionary interest of plaintiff was at least $275,000.
Defendant's Contentions:
That there was a mistake in not notifying plaintiff of the remodeling and improvements or seeking plaintiff's written consent and approval for the remodeling project. That defendant substantially performed its obligations under the lease. Also, that the remodeling work increased the value of the premises by $500,000.