Davis|Stibor recently prevailed at trial on behalf of its client, a commercial landlord, against a tenant who breached the lease and vacated the property. The personal guarantor of the lease was also a defendant in the case. At trial, the defendants argued that the parties entered into a verbal settlement agreement that induced the tenant to sell all of its equipment and vacate the premises. The defendants argued that had this agreement not existed, the tenant could have continued doing business and would not have breached the lease. The defendants argued that the verbal settlement agreement was supported and proven by email correspondence between it and the landlord’s real estate agent.
However, at the trial Davis|Stibor presented emails that proved the tenant was going out of business and ran out of money to continue operations long before it sold the equipment and vacated the premises, which contradicted the defendants’ entire defense. In-fact, Shan Davis’ cross-examination of the personal guarantor consisted of a single question, “Did you state during your direct examination that the [the company] was going out of business?” The defendant answered, “Yes.”
Mr. Davis’ closing argument tied the evidence, trial testimony and law together, resulting in a decision in favor of Davis|Stibor’s client on all claims asserted against the defendants.
Disclaimer: The information contained in this website is provided for informational purposes only, and should not be construed as legal advice on any subject matter. No recipients of content from this site, clients or otherwise, should act or refrain from acting on the basis of any content included in the site without seeking the appropriate legal or other professional advice on the particular facts and circumstances at issue from an attorney licensed in the state of Nevada.