Opinion
Civil Action No. 03-1836.
July 21, 2004
MEMORANDUM
Plaintiff has filed a Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment Pursuant to Rule 59(e), F.R. Civ. P. and for Reconsideration. On March 9, 2004, the Court held a non-jury trial in this case, and on May 14, 2004 filed a Memorandum with the Court's Rule 52 findings of fact and conclusions of law, and entered judgment in favor of Defendants on Plaintiff's Complaint and in favor of Plaintiff on Defendants' Counterclaim.
The Plaintiff makes three arguments in support of her motion. The first is that the sublease agreement addendum is unenforceable since it is against public policy. The Plaintiff primarily cites a Connecticut state court case, Zenon v. R.E. Yeagher Management Corp., 748 A. 2d 900 (Conn App. 2000), applying Massachusetts law. In that case, the appellate court affirmed a defense verdict on a breach of contract claim, holding that the intent of the parties as manifested by the language used in the lease was to terminate the arrangement in the event the defense could not serve alcohol on the premises. The lower court properly found that the language in the lease was a conditional limitation, which caused the lease to terminate upon the occurrence of the contingency, namely, the failure of the liquor license to be in the tenant's name and in use within three months of the commencement of the lease. Id. at 906. There is nothing in the Connecticut case that has any relevance to the contract in this case being unenforceable because it is against public policy.
Plaintiff notes that the Court erroneously indicated in a footnote that there was no sublease agreement; although there was such a document, it was not relevant to the Court's decision in that the sublease agreement addendum contains all of the terms at issue in this case.
This Court found that the sublease agreement addendum is this case was a reasonable commercial arrangement between two contracting parties. However, of relevance is the fact that Plaintiff herself admitted that she did not read the contract before signing it. Under these circumstances, the Court found and reaffirms its finding that the Plaintiff has failed to satisfy her burden of proof that she should not be held to the terms of this agreement.
Plaintiff's second point is that the sublease agreement addendum is unenforceable because it was not executed by an authorized sublessor. There is no stipulation in the sublease agreement addendum as to who must sign the document. Plaintiff waived any such defect because she went ahead and occupied the premises and paid rent for a period of time.
Plaintiff's third point is that the provision of the sublease agreement addendum for forfeiture of the security deposit is unenforceable based on fraud illegality, lack of consideration and is a penalty. The Court reviewed the claim of fraud and found against Plaintiff, rejecting her testimony that Defendants knowingly made false statements to her. The Court found that her testimony was vague, not precise and contradicted the terms of the sublease agreement addendum itself, and therefore found against Plaintiff as to the claim of fraud. The Court is not persuaded by Plaintiff's current motion that these factual findings should be reversed.
In conclusion, the Court will deny Plaintiff's motion. The Court finds, as it did in its original decision, that the Plaintiff failed to sustain her burden of proof.
An appropriate Order follows.
ORDER
AND NOW, this 21st day of July, 2004, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment Pursuant to Rule 59(e) F.R. Civ. P. and for Reconsideration is DENIED.