Court reviews whether a lease guarantor was entitled to an interpreter who was not his co-defendant

MOHINDER N. SUD, v. MAN KENG HO, a/k/a SIMON HO, et al. (Tenn. Ct. App. March 30, 2012)

The Trial Court held Man Keng Ho liable for unpaid rents on commercial property that Ho had leased from his landlord. Ho claimed against Soon Lee Pang, appellant, on the grounds that Pang was the guarantor on the lease. At the subsequent trial between Ho and Pang, Ho acting as an interpreter for Pang, the Trial Court entered Judgment against Pang for the full amount of the Judgment against Ho as guarantor under the terms of the lease.

Pang then filed a Rule 60 Motion seeking relief from the Judgment, principally on the grounds that he was entitled to an interpreter and the Trial Court erred in utilizing his co-defendant, who had an interest in the case, as Pang's interpreter. The Trial Court overruled the Rule 60 Motion and Pang appealed to this Court.

We hold that the Trial Court abused its discretion in not complying with Rules 41 and 42 of the Supreme Court of Tennessee, and remand for a retrial on the merits.

Opinion available at:
https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/sudm_033012.pdf

Court Reviews Whether Individual Defendants are Additional Lessees in a Case Involving the Breach of a Commercial Lease

ASSOCIATED SHOPPING CENTER PROPERTIES, LTD. v. EDWARD H. HODGE ET AL. (Tenn. Ct. App. March 23, 2011)

The issue in this commercial real estate lease dispute is whether the individual defendants are additional lessees and, thus, personally liable under the lease. Plaintiff, the lessor of retail space, filed this action against the three defendants when the limited liability company, Decor Fabrics, LLC, a lessee, breached the lease by failing to pay rent for the term of the lease. The individual defendants denied liability, asserting that Decor Fabrics, LLC, was the only lessee.

The trial court found that the lease unambiguously identifies each of the individual defendants as additional lessees and assessed damages against them for breach of the lease, including the plaintiff's attorneys fees. Only one of the defendants appealed. He asserts that the trial court erred by finding the lease unambiguous as to the identify of the lessee(s) and by failing to consider the parties' conduct to conclude that Decor Fabrics, LLC, was the only lessee. We affirm.

Opinion Available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2011/hodgee_032311.pdf