A landlord brought suit against a tenant in federal court for overdue rent payments on a commercial lease. The landlord sought to recover on the six rent installments that were past due and unpaid at the time of the suit. The landlord won the case, and judgment was entered in her favor. The lease has an acceleration clause that states that all future rent payments become due if the tenant falls behind three months or more. The landlord now files suit against the tenant for the remaining rent payments. The tenant moves to dismiss, asserting that the landlord's claim is barred by claim preclusion (res judicata) principles. Should the tenant's motion to dismiss be granted?

Question

Tanner Hanson

10 October, 04:12

+3

Answers (1)

Know the Answer?

Zayne Moreno · Answer 1

Yes, because the two suits arose out of the same transaction or occurrence.