Mcclain V. Octagon Plaza Facts, Issue, Rules of Law, Application of Rules, and Conclusion

1323 Words6 Pages
KELLY McCLAIN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. OCTAGON PLAZA, LLC, Defendant and Respondent COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, 159 Cal. App. 4th 784; 71 Cal. Rptr. 3d 885; January 31, 2008, Filed FACTS: 1. McClain owns and operates business known as A+ Teaching Supplies. 2. Ted and Wanda Charanian are the principals of Octagon, which owns and operates a shopping center in Valencia, California. 3. On February 28, 2003, McClain agreed to lease commercial space in the shopping center for five years and two months. 4. The contract has an option to extend the lease for two more five-year terms. 5. The lease is a standard form agreement prepared by the American Industrial Real Estate Association. 6. Paragraph…show more content…
Paragraph 4.2 permits Octagon, at its option, to estimate the common expenses for the upcoming calendar year and to require McClain to pay a prorated share of the estimate with her monthly base rent during the year. 13. If McClain underpays her share of the common expenses, she must pay the balance owing no later than 10 days after receiving the statement; if McClain overpays her share, she is to receive credit against her share of the common expenses for the forthcoming year. 14. Prior to entering into the lease McClain attempted to confirm the size of the unit. This offended the Charanians and they told McClain that measuring the area would be very costly due to the odd angles of the space. The Charanians insisted that McClain could rely on their measurements of the area. 15. In early 2005, McClain obtained a copy of Octagon’s earthquake insurance, which disclosed the correct size of the shopping center as 12,800 square feet, rather than 11,835 square feet the Charanians used in calculating McClain’s share of the common expenses. 16. McClain also discovered her unit was only 2,438 feet rather than the 2,624 square feet represented. She was being charged $269 per month extra on her base rent. 17. As a result of this misrepresentation, McClain was paying more than $90,000 extra over the term of her

    More about Mcclain V. Octagon Plaza Facts, Issue, Rules of Law, Application of Rules, and Conclusion

      Get Access