What we know about Mamma Mia's proposed lease for space at the Lake Worth Casino:- 1. There is no active corporation in Florida with the name Mamma Mia, Inc. and that is the name on the proposed lease and how the lease was drawn.
- 2. There is no fictitious name in Florida with the name Mamma Mia, Inc.
- 3. There was no active corporation in either category when the offers to lease became final.
- 4. A new corporation, Mamma Mia's on the Beach, Inc. was formed on February 2, 2012, after the fact.
- 5. And finally, the City of Lake Worth, as well as its "co-conspirator," the city commission, is blatantly not dealing with the facts.
Instead, the city commission kicked out long time tenant VFNS, LLC (NYPD Pizza, the only one vying for that space that did have an active corporation with the State at the time the Commission decided on Mamma Mia, Inc.
On February 3, the above information by a reader who happens to be a lawyer was sent by me to the entire City Commission and to the City Attorney to respond. It was sent again on February 10. Thus far, total silence by the "visionaries."
Is this how we do business in Lake Worth? Not responding to e-mails has become SOP. Ignoring the real problem is easy.
18 comments:
Get over it.
No one but you and your "attorney" friend cares. NYPD's attorney had the opportunity to bring this up and they failed to do so. They were obviously in way over their head.
Move on.
A lot of people care, Bill. A lot of people don't appreciate corruption and lies. So, you continue on and only care about what is unethical. We need a lot more people like you in this City. God forbid. We sure don't need any more law suits.
I heard that NYPD is suing.
Since the Commission Approval din't require incorporation and the guarantees were personal, why is there a concern about incorporation at the time of Lease Submission?
I don't know. You tell me. Someone is signing a lease as a corporation that does NOT EXIST. You don't see anything wrong with that?
I heard that NYPD was late on the their rent payments many times.
So? We've hashed that over before and it has been explained and cleared up. What does that have to do with a Right of First Refusal? What is your argument? Why do you keep arguing anyway?
Which lease(s) have personal guarantees? You are dealing with corporations and Letters of Credit. There is no officer of any corporation guaranteeing anything personally.
Just a point of clarification regarding corporate entity etc., often a tenant will create a new corporate identity for each new location. Sometimes that entity may not even exist at the time of the lease signing.
From a Landlord's standpoint the corporate entity is sometimes meaningless, unless its McDonald's Corp, Subway Corp, etc.
With a smaller tenant the entire performance of the lease is (and should be)guaranteed via a personal guaranty agreement in the lease where an individual, hopefully with substantial net worth has guaranteed the performance of the lease. If the Corporate entity defaults then the Landlord can pursue a judgment against the individual signing the Guaranty and hopefully be made whole from the costs and damages of re-leasing the space, which can be substantial.
In my opinion and in this instance with our Casino building, no matter what the build-out investment is on the part of the tenant, the Guaranty should be for the entire term of the lease, for the protection of the taxpayers money that is involed
I assume that is the case with Mama Mia's.
Conversely a lot of small tenants that sign personal guarantees are mostly worthless as they lack any real net worth and the guaranty simply is a deterrent against a default for the risk of a personal judgement against the individual whether it is ever collectible or not.
Either way lenders prefer and often insist on leases with personal guarantees in order to make the income stream more secure.
Chris
What the Guaranty says:
This is a guaranty of payment and not collection and Landlord may proceed directly against Guarantor without first proceeding with any remedies against Tenant. This Guaranty shall not be impaired by, and Guarantor consents to, any modification, supplement, extension, or amendment of the Lease to which the parties to the Lease may hereafter agree. Presentment, notice, and
demand on Tenant or Guarantor and subsequent dishonor are not conditions to proceeding against Guarantor.
I have been to Mama Mia's on lake worth road by the turnpike and it is great! I do not know if it is the same exact business but I hope so!
As previously stated, the tenant DID NOT EXIST. You can't approve of a tenant that DOES NOT EXIST. Is there anything about that you don't understand? Only in Lake Worth I guess.
There are quite a few Mamma Mia's on Sunbiz, more than enough to prove existence.. The location and Term "On the Beach" was that which required approval from the commission to exist... Once approved..then paper can be finalized. The papers were filed prior, and I remember hearing both the names (location and main) at the Commission meetings when the leases were discussed. Furthermore, even if NYPD had taken up the right of 1st refusal, it could in NO WAY match the offer in form and intent that Mamma Mia's made the town. I'm glad NYPD has their new place. It has a great location, and is much cleaner and welcoming and larger than it ever was at the beach. They've done a good job there and will thrive.
Mama Mia, Inc. name did not exist when the commission approved this lease.
The lease is in the name of a corporation that DOES NOT EXIST.
Are you a lawyer?
Mama Mia's on the Beach, their trade name, was filed on 2/1/12, AFTER the fact. Therefore, it did NOT EXIST AT THE TIME. It doesn't matter whether they verbally relayed their intent to file this name.
The City WAS so wrapped up in technicalities that night, that it TOTALLY SCREWED UP.
Next, NYPD Pizza had the right to match any offer by Mamma Mia's. They were willing to do that. Obviously, the Right of First Refusal is confusing for some.
I very much enjoy NPYD right where it is, its really the best pizza downtown and I order from there once every couple of weeks.
The fact that they were late on rent does matter if we are going to run the Casino as a business, but so does the fact that they had a right of first refusal.
Talk about beating a dead horse... The vote was taken and a decision was made. I understand you don't agree with the decision, but now that you've gotten a "cease and desist" letter it is time to change subjects.
I have no idea what you're talking about.
The vote was taken and a decision was made. SO? There have been plenty of crappy decisions in this city.
Lynn, maybe you will get a letter from Obama's Dept of Justice next to cease and desist. haha.
Post a Comment