1. BASIC LEASE INFORMATION AND DEFINED TERMS. The key business terms of this Lease and the defined terms used in this Lease are as follows:
1.1 Landlord. CITY OF LAKE WORTH, a municipal corporation under the laws of the State of Florida.
1.2 Tenant. Mamma Mia, Inc, a Florida Corporation
1.3 Tenant’s Trade Name. Mamma Mia’s on the Beach, Inc.
However, 1.3 does not appear to be exactly correct. This is the name under which it will be conducting business at our Lake Worth casino. This appears to be a brand new corporation, not just a corporation using a fictitious name or a trade name as stated above. Any lawyers who can set me straight?
| Florida Profit Corporation | ||||||||||||
| MAMMA MIA'S ON THE BEACH, INC. | ||||||||||||
| Filing Information | ||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
| Principal Address | ||||||||||||
| 9731 CAMPI DRIVE LAKE WORTH FL 33467 | ||||||||||||
| Changed 02/02/2012 |
The question on the Mamma Mia matter is as follows: Is Mamma Mia on the Beach, Inc., a fictitious name or is it a separate corporation? If it is just a fictitious name, then the only corporate entity is Mamma Mia, Inc. which does business as Mamma Mia on the Beach, Inc. On the other hand, if Mamma Mia on the Beach, Inc., is a separate corporate entity, then Mamma Mia, Inc., needs technically to transfer its lease to Mamma Mia on the Beach, Inc.
ReplyDeleteA Lawyer
why cant you just ask the city attorney...i would think she should know.
ReplyDeleteA trade name is just that, a trade name. The tenant in the lease above is Mama Mia, Inc. The trade name could be "We Rock The Beach" All matters of tenant/landlord lease issues and legality is between the Tenant and the City. The trade name is for the most part meaningless unless someone else at the Casino wants to operate under that trade name.
ReplyDeleteChris
Carful Now!!! if you ask the city attorney, more than likely she will want to secure a consultant. I don't think she is caplable rendering an opionion on her own.
ReplyDeleteThe only corporation I see under the name Momma Mia, Inc., is a dissolved corporation by that name. Under fictitious names, I do not see any fictitious name for Mamma Mia, Inc. Taking the whacho technical rules of the Commission, Momma Mia, Inc. should have been disqualified as a prospective tenant since there was no entity in existence by that name either when the offers supposedly became final or on January 31, 2012. Therefore, NYPD, by whatever corporate name it used, was the sole entity that existed both when the offers supposedly became final and on January 31st. Therefore, as the only tenant making an offer, it should have been awarded Units 1 & 2. Since Snitkin, Margoles and the outside attorney and some of the Commission wanted to be super-technical, it appears that they are hoisted on their own technicalities.
ReplyDeleteMaybe Commissioner Suzanne Mulvehill can organize a circle of light to save NYPD.
ReplyDeleteCommissioner Mulvehill did SAVE the casino. If we had allowed it to be demolished, we never would have been able to build where it is today and where it has been since 1922. This would have ruined much commercial success of the project if it had to be built down by A1A. We never would have been able to get $35 a s.f as an example.
ReplyDeleteNow, we have all conceded that you are right--that it is a NEW building but you just want to spin the same old broken record. I don't know why you get some thrill about the possible failure of the Casino.
P.S. She voted for Mamma Mia's. Where have you been?
Yes, Commissioner Mulvehill saved the casino buiding, just like she saved John G's. It's all about politics, even her vote against NYPD Pizza was political.
ReplyDeleteI beg to differ with you on Mulvehill. Here is why--
ReplyDelete1. She has taken the Stanton approach from day one. Let's get a good business in there so we can move on. Longboats came along and we didn't have to look further.
2. She voted with Mamma Mia's because a) she was not on the 3 to 2 vote side. b) This clearly shows this was not a political vote. If it had been a correct and right vote, she should have voted with NYPD. Instead, she voted with the majority to move the project along and end the contention. Frankly, I was highly disappointed that she did not stand up to principle but went along with Staff that was kicking the long term tenants out.
3. John G's was given the run around by Staff. They are very happy in Manalapan. You can't "save" something that was been impossible to fix.
Christopher McVoy was the only one who did the right thing.
Everything on the beach is supposed to support the two projects. The beach redevelopment is paid for by the County unless, of course, we get bamboozled into spending a mil or two more.
The best, or worst, political statement of the night was when Triolo said something to the effect that LY T-Shop should have come back. He would have been ousted just like Vito.
rethink that Lynn she has not taken Stantons approach from day one. She has taken Cara's approach since she started running.
ReplyDeleteBS. What is Cara's approach anonymous? Speak in specifics. You RETHINK it. Suzanne was a registered Republican until Varela FORCED to to change to an Independent. She has Republican values. You obviously do NOT know Mulvehill.
ReplyDeleteenough to know that a LOT of political promises where broken
ReplyDeleteThe Rights of First Refusal certainly never were poltiical. This is what WE the people wanted. We wanted our long term tenants to have the right to come back and lease at the casino. Not only were they promised verbally by the City, but those rights were built into their leases. This had nothing to do with Mulvehill. So explain your statement. Some of the tenants through the years gave a contribution or two to those politicians who repected them and wanted to save the casino. What is wrong with that? No one went bonkers when the Webbers contributed and campaigned for Loretta or Retha or someone of their choice now did they?
ReplyDeleteThe problem with THAT statement Lynn, is the Webbers do not rent from the City They own their own building...
ReplyDeleteThe problem with THAT statement anonymous, is that the Webbers got a grant from the CRA for THAT building that they own.
ReplyDeleteA Grant from the CRA is NOT renting a space, or property from the city. That is quite a difference.
ReplyDeleteA grant from the CRA was with taxpayer money. A unit at our casino is an asset owned by and paid for by taxpayer money. Do you see any correlation at all?
ReplyDeleteP.S. This blog was about the problems with the Mamma Mia lease.