Atkinson v. Rosenthal, 598 N.E.2d 666 (1992)
- Citation
- Atkinson v. Rosenthal, 598 N.E.2d 666 (1992)
- Parent Document
- Atkinson v. Rosenthal, 598 N.E.2d 666 (1992)
- Jurisdiction
- Massachusetts (state)
- Effective Date
- 1992-08-25
Other Sections in This Document (43)
- Atkinson v. Rosenthal, 598 N.E.2d 666 (1992)
- Atkinson v. Rosenthal, 598 N.E.2d 666 (1992)
- Atkinson v. Rosenthal, 598 N.E.2d 666 (1992)
- Atkinson v. Rosenthal, 598 N.E.2d 666 (1992)
- Atkinson v. Rosenthal, 598 N.E.2d 666 (1992)
- Atkinson v. Rosenthal, 598 N.E.2d 666 (1992)
- Atkinson v. Rosenthal, 598 N.E.2d 666 (1992)
- Atkinson v. Rosenthal, 598 N.E.2d 666 (1992)
- Atkinson v. Rosenthal, 598 N.E.2d 666 (1992)
- Atkinson v. Rosenthal, 598 N.E.2d 666 (1992)
- Atkinson v. Rosenthal, 598 N.E.2d 666 (1992)
- Atkinson v. Rosenthal, 598 N.E.2d 666 (1992)
- Atkinson v. Rosenthal, 598 N.E.2d 666 (1992)
- Atkinson v. Rosenthal, 598 N.E.2d 666 (1992)
- Atkinson v. Rosenthal, 598 N.E.2d 666 (1992)
- Atkinson v. Rosenthal, 598 N.E.2d 666 (1992)
- Atkinson v. Rosenthal, 598 N.E.2d 666 (1992)
- Atkinson v. Rosenthal, 598 N.E.2d 666 (1992)
- Atkinson v. Rosenthal, 598 N.E.2d 666 (1992)
- Atkinson v. Rosenthal, 598 N.E.2d 666 (1992)
- Atkinson v. Rosenthal, 598 N.E.2d 666 (1992)
- Atkinson v. Rosenthal, 598 N.E.2d 666 (1992)
- Atkinson v. Rosenthal, 598 N.E.2d 666 (1992)
- Atkinson v. Rosenthal, 598 N.E.2d 666 (1992)
- Atkinson v. Rosenthal, 598 N.E.2d 666 (1992)
- Atkinson v. Rosenthal, 598 N.E.2d 666 (1992)
- Atkinson v. Rosenthal, 598 N.E.2d 666 (1992)
- Atkinson v. Rosenthal, 598 N.E.2d 666 (1992)
- Atkinson v. Rosenthal, 598 N.E.2d 666 (1992)
- Atkinson v. Rosenthal, 598 N.E.2d 666 (1992)
- Atkinson v. Rosenthal, 598 N.E.2d 666 (1992)
- Atkinson v. Rosenthal, 598 N.E.2d 666 (1992)
- Atkinson v. Rosenthal, 598 N.E.2d 666 (1992)
- Atkinson v. Rosenthal, 598 N.E.2d 666 (1992)
- Atkinson v. Rosenthal, 598 N.E.2d 666 (1992)
- Atkinson v. Rosenthal, 598 N.E.2d 666 (1992)
- Atkinson v. Rosenthal, 598 N.E.2d 666 (1992)
- Atkinson v. Rosenthal, 598 N.E.2d 666 (1992)
- Atkinson v. Rosenthal, 598 N.E.2d 666 (1992)
- Atkinson v. Rosenthal, 598 N.E.2d 666 (1992)
- Atkinson v. Rosenthal, 598 N.E.2d 666 (1992)
- Atkinson v. Rosenthal, 598 N.E.2d 666 (1992)
- Atkinson v. Rosenthal, 598 N.E.2d 666 (1992)
Full Text
1,452 charsThe same difficulty applies to the finding that the rent not paid by the tenants in the twenty-two months left in their lease term ($66,000, without regard to the tax and operating expense components) was.more than compensated for by the improvements made by the replacement tenant and by the over-all economic benefits of the new lease. That conclusion seems to have been arrived at intuitively. Again, the only evidence was that the improvements would likely not be useful to a successor tenant. The judge disbelieved that evidence. As we observed before, he was entitled so to do. Lacking, however, is any evidence of what might be a proper amortization period for the leasehold improvements and in what amount that might be regarded as benefit derived by the landlord. Similarly lacking in the record is evidence about how long the first-floor space had been vacant and whether the ability of the landlord to lease the first-floor space was enhanced by the fortuitous availability of the basement space, an enhancement which could be set off against rent the tenants owed. As to additional rent for taxes and operating expenses, if the new tenants, beginning April 1, 1989, were, as appears to be the case, making payments on account of taxes and operating expenses, those payments would cancel out obligations on that score by the old tenants. The trial judge needs to reexamine the question of post-April 1, 1989, damages. 3. Chapter 93A damages.