Metroplex
Sponsored by

Dallas Comedy House could use your support

4,838 Views | 52 Replies | Last: 5 yr ago by walton91
COOL LASER FALCON
How long do you want to ignore this user?
gig em 02 said:

How can you claim they are acting in bad faith if you don't know what the outstanding violations are for?

If she's out in two years anyway why doesn't she have them buy her out? If it's such a hot ticket attraction that the public will rally around seems like the extra cash and a reasonable transition period would help get into an even better venue with real parking.
The chances are slim that we ever find out what all of the violations are. All of us are just operating under what we believe to be the most likely scenario. I see enough evidence to believe that the new landlords bought the building with no intention of honoring the two years remaining on the lease. That seems to be in bad faith to me.

They offered to buy her out before they bought the building. They didn't respond to her counter-offer and she didn't hear from them again until she started receiving the violation notices. She's open to a buy-out of the lease.
COOL LASER FALCON
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Goose said:

bagger05 said:

And if DCH's claims are BS, it would be very simple for Black's to refute them with very little evidence. Yet all we hear is silence from them.
My guess is that the landlord is confident they'll win in court so any response to the tenant's pleas via the media would be pointless and/or counter-productive.
I guess they deleted the tweet that I posted earlier, but they did release a statement. It's still on their facebook page. It doesn't really refute any of their claims.

I think most people think Terry Black's will "win" a legal battle because they have more resources than DCH so they're able to drag this out until Amanda can't pay her lawyers. That's why public support here is so important.
Keeper of The Spirits
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I'd guess, the landlords aren't confident they can win in court, they are confident they can bleed her dry with legal fees. They likely wouldn't get a court date before the lease was up. She should be documenting everything and making it clear to the company she is documenting everything. And by all means, get an attorney.
gig em 02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
COOL LASER FALCON said:

gig em 02 said:

How can you claim they are acting in bad faith if you don't know what the outstanding violations are for?

If she's out in two years anyway why doesn't she have them buy her out? If it's such a hot ticket attraction that the public will rally around seems like the extra cash and a reasonable transition period would help get into an even better venue with real parking.
The chances are slim that we ever find out what all of the violations are. All of us are just operating under what we believe to be the most likely scenario. I see enough evidence to believe that the new landlords bought the building with no intention of honoring the two years remaining on the lease. That seems to be in bad faith to me.

They offered to buy her out before they bought the building. They didn't respond to her counter-offer and she didn't hear from them again until she started receiving the violation notices. She's open to a buy-out of the lease.


Enforcing the terms of a lease is bad faith? Is her goal to destroy the entire real estate industry?
bagger05
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

1) n. intentional dishonest act by not fulfilling legal or contractual obligations, misleading another, entering into an agreement without the intention or means to fulfill it, or violating basic standards of honesty in dealing with others

IF Black's bought the building with the intent to "find a way" to terminate DCH's lease then I'd say that's operating in bad faith. I don't think anyone is claiming to know Black's motivation for certain, but based on the information that's available it doesn't seem like an unreasonable conclusion.

The attempt to buy out DCH's lease before they bought the building appears to illustrate their desire to have that spot. Buying the building and using these undisclosed violations that the previous owner didn't seem to have a problem with looks like a different tactic to get that location they seem to want.

I'm not claiming to KNOW the whole story but that's what it looks like on the surface and seems to be the simplest explanation to me.
gig em 02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
So DCH doesn't intend to fulfill the contract that they entered into, which means BBQ is operating in bad faith? The previous landlord didn't intend to enforce the contract so BBQ is acting in bad faith?

There's a reason lawyers are expensive. If DCH really cares about this they should lawyer up because this thread is making them look bad from a legal stand point.

Like I said, if the intention is to destroy the real estate industry this "bad faith" argument would be a great rabbit hole to get caught in.

Either way good luck and I hope they find a better spot when the dust settles.
bagger05
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
She does have lawyers and according to them DCH is not in default on the lease.

Black's says they can't make issues public due to threats from DCH's lawyers but I don't understand what leverage DCH could have in the situation.

Maybe Austin is the villain here, but until something else comes out I'll stick with what I think is the simplest explanation: Black's wants the location for a BBQ joint and they've decided this is the best way to get the spot. At least that's what makes sense to me.
COOL LASER FALCON
How long do you want to ignore this user?
gig em 02 said:

So DCH doesn't intend to fulfill the contract that they entered into, which means BBQ is operating in bad faith?
i don't understand where you're getting this idea.
John Francis Donaghy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
With the way Deep Ellum has taken off the last few years, there's almost no way that collecting rent payments from a 3 year old lease for another two years would be profitable for landlord who paid present day value on a large building in arguably the hottest neighborhood in the city.

As a result, I have a hard time believing that Blacks had any intention of letting DCH finish out their lease, and from the sounds of it, Blacks is the one that walked away from the buyout negotiations.

I agree that we don't know all the facts. But from what we do know, the odds of DCH being the bad actor here seem very very slim.
gig em 02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
COOL LASER FALCON said:

gig em 02 said:

So DCH doesn't intend to fulfill the contract that they entered into, which means BBQ is operating in bad faith?
i don't understand where you're getting this idea.
It's the foundation of your whole story. If you don't know what your entire thread is based on how can you take a side? Find out tomorrow where the idea that DCH is in default under the lease comes from and come share it with us, don't leave us hanging!
Keeper of The Spirits
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The idea that DCH is in default is coming from Blacks. DCH obviously disagrees. Plus Black's is mediocre BBQ outside of Lockhart
John Francis Donaghy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
According to the articles we have, Blacks is trying to say that DCH is in default because their lease doesn't permit them to hold shows. Even if that's true, they've been holding regular shows in an open and obvious fashion for, what? 9 years now? 3 of them under the current lease agreement?

The previous landlord's failure to enforce whatever provisions Blacks is trying to use to force DCH out, waived the landlords right to enforce those provisions years ago. Since the new owner assumes whatever position the old owner held under the lease, Blacks should be prevented from enforcing those provisions as well.

Again, speculation based on the information we have. But even that seems to be a losing battle for Blacks based on the facts as they've been presented.
bagger05
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
gig em 02 said:

COOL LASER FALCON said:

gig em 02 said:

So DCH doesn't intend to fulfill the contract that they entered into, which means BBQ is operating in bad faith?
i don't understand where you're getting this idea.
It's the foundation of your whole story. If you don't know what your entire thread is based on how can you take a side? Find out tomorrow where the idea that DCH is in default under the lease comes from and come share it with us, don't leave us hanging!

gig em 02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
John Francis Donaghy said:

According to the articles we have, Blacks is trying to say that DCH is in default because their lease doesn't permit them to hold shows. Even if that's true, they've been holding regular shows in an open and obvious fashion for, what? 9 years now? 3 of them under the current lease agreement?

So DCH entered into a lease that prohibited them from engaging in the primary activity they intended to engage in, and people here don't understand my previous post about that being the foundation of this entire thread?

The previous landlord's failure to enforce whatever provisions Blacks is trying to use to force DCH out, waived the landlords right to enforce those provisions years ago. Since the new owner assumes whatever position the old owner held under the lease, Blacks should be prevented from enforcing those provisions as well.

I'd be shocked if a professionally drafted contract for anything didn't include a waiver provision. A waiver provision says "we may waive whatever we want but we can change our minds and enforce it in the future." I would love to read the contract, can you provide a link to it?

Again, speculation based on the information we have. But even that seems to be a losing battle for Blacks based on the facts as they've been presented.
Going to need a whole lot more information but your speculation would be a really extreme case. From the TAA standard apartment lease (obviously not the lease here but its an example of a waiver):

"No action or omission by us will be considered a waiver of our rights or of any subsequent violation, default, or time or place of performance. Our not enforcing or belatedly enforcing written-notice requirements, rental due dates, acceleration, liens, or other rights isn't a waiver under any circumstances."
gig em 02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bagger05 said:

gig em 02 said:

COOL LASER FALCON said:

gig em 02 said:

So DCH doesn't intend to fulfill the contract that they entered into, which means BBQ is operating in bad faith?
i don't understand where you're getting this idea.
It's the foundation of your whole story. If you don't know what your entire thread is based on how can you take a side? Find out tomorrow where the idea that DCH is in default under the lease comes from and come share it with us, don't leave us hanging!


What do yall not understand? Half of you think DCH isn't complying with the lease but they shouldn't have to and half of you think DCH is fully complying with the lease and Blacks is being a meanie. Has DCH made the lease and the default notices public yet? I would like to see them, it is clear that yall have a lot more facts than I do.
COOL LASER FALCON
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The claim about the shows and the classes isn't that it's against the lease directly, but is about the permits on file. This is from the Observer article (which I'd really recommend you read if you're interested in the discussion here)

Quote:

Austin says the default notices were not rent-related Black Market has accepted her monthly lease payments but rather focused on the legitimacy of permits on file granting DCH permission to host shows and classes.


As for above, I don't understand the basis that you're claiming that DCH doesn't intend to honor their lease. Even if some of Black Market's claims are true, saying DCH has no intention of honoring their lease is a stretch at best.
Quinn
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Owners of Terry Black's Barbecue Speak on the Dallas Comedy House Controversy

Quote:

You may have seen the controversy covered in the Dallas press. Both the Dallas Morning News and the Dallas Observer ran stories, but neither talked with Michael and Mark Black. They are the brothers behind Terry Black's Barbecue, and own the place along with their father, Terry. I sat down with the brothers at their Austin restaurant last Monday, the day the eviction was to be enforced. Both brothers told me their lawyers had advised them against speaking, but Mark Black said, "[Amanda Austin] can stay in that building until her lease is up if she does right by the lease." They contend that the building had safety issues that are the responsibility of the tenant. The Blacks said they sent three different default notices outlining the deficient items, along with a timeline to complete them. "There are certain violations that can't be ignored," Michael Black said, and the brothers felt those violations weren't being adequately addressed.

Earlier this week, Amanda Austin told me, "I'm going to do what I can to fix everything" from the long list of items listed on the default notices. Some items seemed minor, like a broken outdoor light, but there were also some serious issues to address from the fire marshal. Some exit pathways had been blocked, fire doors were propped open, and one exit door was locked. These were all listed on the fire marshal's March 28 report on the building, which I reviewed. Austin was told to fix the items before an impending reinspection.

Austin said the "notice to terminate tenancy" (a.k.a. an eviction notice) from Black Market Investments was sent April 10, before the follow-up inspection. The fire marshal returned the next day and gave Austin a bit of relief with a passing grade, but her landlord had already set the eviction date as April 16. She felt like she was out of options, and decided to make the unhappy news public on Facebook. "I had to let people know because I have hundreds of students and performers," Austin said. "If they had showed up [on the 16th], and I don't have an explanation," it would make her look like a delinquent operator, she feared. The date came and went, and as a hopeful Austin said in an announcement earlier this week, Dallas Comedy House is "operating as usual." In fact, they're booked solid with performers through the weekend.
walton91
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

Both brothers told me their lawyers had advised them against speaking, but Mark Black said, "[Amanda Austin] can stay in that building until her lease is up if she does right by the lease."
They couldn't say that back in April, huh?
walton91
How long do you want to ignore this user?
If I didn't know any better I'd think Black Market Investments was desperate for ANY reason to evict DCH. I'm sure the Fire Marshall is excited too each time they get another "anonymous" complaint about DCH.

http://www.dallasobserver.com/arts/dallas-comedy-house-gets-a-visit-from-the-fire-marshal-10713571

Quote:

An anonymous complaint was sent to the fire marshal stating both buildings that make up Dallas Comedy House were over capacity, thus creating a fire hazard. Of the two buildings, only one is open to the public, that being the home to DCH's two theaters and bar area...Representatives of the fire marshal's office arrived at DCH around 8:30 p.m. last Tuesday and after a brief walk-through of both buildings with owner Amanda Austin left around 9 p.m. Neither space was found to be overcapacity and there were no instructions from the fire marshal to make any changes to be compliant for the future...This surprise inspection during business hours comes after third-party inspectors hired by Black Market Investments did an in-depth inspection of the property May 8. Austin says the third-party inspectors were there from 2 p.m. to 4:45 p.m. to check the state of both buildings. Austin is not allowed to engage or ask questions during these particular inspections, and the third-party company does not share any findings with Austin.

They sure seemed friendly and patient (i.e. not bullies) in the Texas Monthly interview last month.
Quote:

Mark and Michael Black are hoping for happy neighbors in Deep Ellum whenever they open the barbecue joint, and insist they're not trying to bully Dallas Comedy House out. "We've only got plans for two Terry Black's, here [in Austin] and in Dallas, whether it be three years, five years, ten years," Michael Black said. Mark added that he was frustrated with how his family was portrayed in the coverage of the controversy. "Stuff like this happens when one side tries to win public opinion, and damn if she didn't win it," he said.
Refresh
Page 2 of 2
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.