In Re D.C. Diamond Head, Inc., 51 B.R. 309 (1985)

Citation: In Re D.C. Diamond Head, Inc., 51 B.R. 309 (1985)
Parent Document: In Re D.C. Diamond Head, Inc., 51 B.R. 309 (1985)
Jurisdiction: United States (federal)
Effective Date: 1985-04-22
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1898470/in-re-dc-diamond-head-inc/ ↗

Full Text

1,326 chars

Even if the landlord had contended that the tenant’s failure to pay was “willful, calculated and persistent,” this court would reject that contention based on the record in this case. Attached to the parties’ pleadings in this court are copies of some of the papers presented in the Landlord-Tenant Court. Among the seventeen separate defenses stated by the tenant/defendant in the Answer which it tendered in the Landlord-Tenant case in conjunction with its motion to vacate the default judgment (but which was never formally filed in that court because of the intervention of this bankruptcy proceeding) was the defense that the Landlord-Tenant case was “in retaliation against defendant for defendant’s good faith decision to withhold rent because of the existence on or about the subject premises” of breaches of the landlord’s lease obligations (including, apparently, unrepaired air conditioning and elevators). Not infrequently, an impecunious party will raise numerous justifications for nonpayment which a financially solvent party would not bother to press. Based on the entire record in this case, this Court is convinced that, notwithstanding the bare allegation in the unfiled Landlord-Tenant Court Answer, the primary and overriding reason for nonpayment was lack of funds, as both tenant and landlord well knew.

Other Sections in This Document (121)

Full Text