Yes, it is where Linda's is in Lex. Pk, think county or some company has purchased that land and it will be torn down for office space and a park. Not sure when that will happen.
Trouble at Linda's Cafe (witnessed)
- Thread starter FireWoman
- Start date
Yes, it is where Linda's is in Lex. Pk, think county or some company has purchased that land and it will be torn down for office space and a park. Not sure when that will happen.
FerretRescue
bite me
I still think there could have been a better way of handling it then just coming in and throwing everyone out.
I hope Linda is able to work this out.
I beleive that is the point he trying to make. We'll see.
BS Gal
Voted Nicest in 08
Well, get your butt in there and give us the scoop. I happen to like breakfast for lunch there on occasion.
Hey there, watch what is getting ready to happen! I could not make up this if I tried! I think that someone who enters into an agreement with someone and takes advantage of there situation is wrong in any sense of the way. What kind of landlord enters into a lease with representation. Why would you want to bankrupt your tenent, when that is income cominng in for you each month? These are resonable questions that I would like to know? Why does everyone that you deal with seem to have the same problems with the both of you? Why. Sorry I am passionate, not crazy and these people have taken advantage of a honest person with these web of lies and decet! Plain and simple!
BS Gal
Voted Nicest in 08
Who are you talking to?
Parrish probably has a lawyer on retainer. And it appears that the tenant is not providing Parrish with income, hence the problem. Why is it so hard to see that when you enter into a contract with someone, you are obligated to fulfill your side of the contract, i.e., PAY THE RENT! I'm sure Parrish pays taxes and perhaps a mortgage on the property. Why should she allow someone to occupy the space and not pay rent?
Linda has never been behind on rent! The judgement is for an amended portion of the lease that was slipped in at the last minute and not acknowledged for 2% off of the top line of her gross!!!!! She has been fighting it with her and I swear to you every step of this processs has been illegal and the #####es are going down!
BS Gal
Voted Nicest in 08
Perhaps Linda needs a better lawyer to help her review legally binding documents before she signs them?
your right I agree, but your telling me that the only answer to that is " better luck next time"? I just don't think that these people are ethical people and I feel they should be exposed for the frauds that they are! Thank you for keeping me in line, but I am rather upset by this!
BS Gal
Voted Nicest in 08
What is your relationship to Linda?
godsbutterfly
Free to Fly
I have been hearing about this since I moved here over a year and a half ago, but then the Antique Store was sold to a new owner (said the new owner!) so it's kinda confusing to me.
This is a new lawyer not one she had when she started the business in Leonardtown. The money has been paid, still waiting to hear from Judge for the emergency hearing for today. When I know more I will keep you updated.
BS Gal
Voted Nicest in 08
I have a craving for scrambled egss.
We will have to wait.
When he knows, he'll let me know, so I can keep you updated.BS Gal, I'm coming over, found something you will love.
smilin
BOXER NATION
From what I can make of this thread it sounds like Linda signed a lease in which she has a base rent plus 2% of the gross. This is hardly unusual, the only way she can get any relief is if it was signed signed under duress, was misrepresented and/or fraudulently included in the lease.
The fact that she signed the lease means she agreed to everything in it, including the 2% clause - she needs a good lawyer.
The fact the landlord had representation means they were prepared. Linda should have had the same - ignorance is not a defense.
Good luck, I've been down this path before.
The fact that she signed the lease means she agreed to everything in it, including the 2% clause - she needs a good lawyer.
The fact the landlord had representation means they were prepared. Linda should have had the same - ignorance is not a defense.
Good luck, I've been down this path before.
FerretRescue
bite me
Oh so it was not back rent that Linda owed, 2% interesting.
BS Gal
Voted Nicest in 08
BS Gal, I'm coming over, found something you will love.
camily
Peace
. I had no idea!
smilin
BOXER NATION
I'm sorry - I reread this post because it still made little sense. If the landlord slipped the 2% clause in at the last minute and Linda didn't agree to it then they made a large mistake.
However, I can't see the landlord (unless they were desperate for a tenant)
allowing anybody to take over and renovate a property, (esp. with a lawyer in tow) without a duly signed lease beforehand .