Hernandez v. Thottam CA2/4
Respondent Connie Hernandez leased a commercial unit from appellant, non-practicing attorney Phoenix (AKA Peter) Thottam. At the time of the lease, the unit was without power due to a recent fire, but according to respondent, appellant had promised, both orally and in writing, to restore power to the unit. The lease itself, which was drafted by appellant, stated that the unit was being provided on an as-is basis, but also stated that appellant was working to restore power and further required respondent to cooperate with appellant as he was doing so. The lease additionally included conflicting provisions regarding the parties’ entitlement to attorney fees in case of a dispute, some precluding attorney fees and another entitling appellant to fees.
Comments on Hernandez v. Thottam CA2/4