Yesterday, when we ran a post on the Range about the imminent closing of V Modern Thai downtown, I sort of expected that there might be some residual unpleasantness…the owner seemed to be avoiding us, every time we called the restaurant, we were hung up on, there were some rumors about chaos with the restaurant’s management, etc. etc.
However, I wasn’t particularly expecting this:
First off, I think any sane person would suspect this, but what incentive would we have to “cause harm” to a local restaurant (or any local business)? As someone who just went through a stretch of employment-related uncertainty, that’s not the sort of thing I’d wish on anyone, but also, it’s probably in our best interest to be thought of as pro-local business and not getting into some weird quest to take one down.
On a related note, no one from V (other than Mr. Mennes, who spent most of our call threatening me) answered our emails, would talk to us on the phone or seemingly made any effort to get in touch with us whatsoever. So, if there was an inaccuracy, wouldn’t some sort of attempt to set the record straight be the way to go?
More importantly, there’s no particular reason to believe that V will be open on May 12, partially because it’s a little surprising they’re open now.
On April 8, Holualoa, the landlord for V’s space at 1 E. Congress, Suite 200, filed to have the restaurant evicted from its space for a breach of lease due to V owing $30,854.87 in back rent (plus late charges) as of that date. On April 11, Holualoa presented a written eviction notice to V’s owner, but when Holualoa attempted to lock the restaurant’s owners out, they refused to leave the premises. On the same day, V’s owners tried to file for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, which Holualoa fought in court due to a technicality in a motion on April 16 about needing a lawyer to file. Notably, in that filing, Holualoa’s representative writes that:
Landlord sought to enforce its remedies under the Lease by terminating Debtor’s right of possession and locking Debtor out of the premises. However, Debtor refused to vacate the premises and a representative or agent of Debtor remains on the premises at all times to prevent the lockout. This continued occupation of the Premises is an additional breach of the Lease.
The next hearing on that front is Monday, May 12 at 3 p.m. where the landlord is going to try again to get V Modern Thai locked out. And, yes, if Holualoa prevails, and odds are they will, it’ll be a bummer that a local restaurant couldn’t make it work.
It’s probably way more complicated than even these court filings indicate and I’m personally not the type to necessarily take the landlord’s side in a property dispute, although it’s not like Vila Jarrell, the owner, gave us the opportunity to tell her side of the story, even though we tried again today to get in touch with her.
However, what I don’t think is fair is the attempt to defame Henry or our publication in an effort to avoid what seems like an inevitable end for V Modern Thai on Congress.
We’ll see what happens on Monday, but in the meantime, we stand by our story.
This article appears in May 1-7, 2014.
They must be taking lessons from Amy’s Baking Company …
Well now….
So, this information is in the public domain, as eviction filings are public. And yet they say that the TW is slandering them? PUBLIC INFORMATION. Wow.
They claim a water heater issue has them closed now on their FB page. Right!!
Let’s hope this doesn’t turn into an Amy’s Baking Co. situation where any publicity is… you know.
Abandon ship!!
Unfortunate but it makes sense that a business that provides sub – par service would be underwhelming. Tough and good riddance.
So are they open or not?
FWIW, I would, and have, walked a mile for those mussels. Yum yum yum.
For what its worth its always sad to see someone’s dream and hard work go up in flames. I’ve known Vila for a long time and I used to think highly of her. I know at least several people who have worked for her and one that still does. She built this restaurant as a monument to her own ego. From the “V charity artwork” all the way down to her special tasting/hangout/party room. It’s sad to see her try to blame everyone for her failure here. It was a bad choice of location yet she blames the city for street car construction that has been over for a long time now. She blames racism, she blames local building owners and their tenants, she says she’s being bullied.
The only person or persons to blame are her and her husband. The food and service are just not good. They were much better on University before she decided to turn into a fine dining establishment. Employees tell me about the irregularities in her tip pool. Artists and promoters are asked to work there for free and often not paid. Breaking the rules, including her lease requirement of not being open after 12pm, are the norm here. Sometimes we have to look to ourselves for the blame in order to help us grow. Pointing fingers and playing the victim seems to be the new thing in this country. Admit defeat, move on and be a better person Vila. Denying what everyone else seems to know is just sad.
I love the smell of a good beef in the morning
Contrary to Dan Gibson’s statements, he and Tucson Weekly chose not to print V Modern Thai’s side of the story after V Modern Thai informed Tucson Weekly that it was fighting to stay open and pursuing legal remedies.
It’s a simple matter that will be resolved by the parties, or played out in court.
The landlord and tenant signed a lease expressly providing for an abatement of rent if the demised premises become unfit for business by no fault of the tenant. ARS 33-343 also protects tenants and expressly states that a tenant is not obligated to pay rent if the demised premises become unfit for business thru no fault of the tenant.
In this instance, V Modern Thai is pursuing claims against the landlord and will show that Congress St and Stone St were closed, at the same time, from time to time, rendering V Modern Thai’s demised premises unfit for business, by no fault of the tenant.
Tucson Weekly chose not to inform the public about these efforts and failed to print anything about legal remedies available to Tucson’s merchants.
V Modern Thai is going to court to illustrate the damage caused by construction and street closures, and has retained experts and local counsel. V Modern Thai is represented by Harlow, Spainer & Heckele PLLC; and Holualoa is represented by Greg Good Law, at issue are remedies for Tucson merchants adversely impacted by construction and street closures.
Mr. Mennes,
You never told me any such thing. You yelled at me telling me you were going to sue me for running the article, gave the distinct (and false) impression that you’re a lawyer until I asked if you were a member of the Arizona bar, followed with the claim that you’re the managing partner of V (you’re not, at least in any particular legal sense) demanded I take the article down, said that you’d make me “pay,” then hung up on me.
Still, I’ll stop by the court hearing on Monday. If V wins with that argument (and I have no particular skin in the game whether you do or don’t), we’ll write that story.
In the meantime, since this is apparently the forum you’d like to discuss this, can you confirm or deny whether Vila sent out text messages over the weekend telling people that the restaurant was closing on Sunday? Wanted to fill out the story a bit.
Thanks,
Dan Gibson
Construction didn’t stop Elliott’s from helping me to create a successful Jazz Jam every Monday night downtown. That’s on Congress too. Right on the streetcar line. Not a bad night in over a year. We went through the construction to create the best Monday scene for Jazz this city has ever seen. Still swingin’ every Monday with a full house. Still no street car and plenty of construction during the two years we’ve been playing there. Didn’t hold us back at all. Make excuses all you want V. You’re a bad business person and I think you know what karma is. Thanks for the offer of noodles to play at your restaurant and then trashing me to my peers and other businesses when I took exception. Your tactics, poor product and service is what is putting you out of business. Not street closures or racism. You are not good at what you do and you have no respect for artists. Seems like most places downtown are thriving despite construction, at least the ones I play at. The problem is clearly YOU.
Mr. Mennes: A.R.S.§ 33-343 also states in pertinent part, “…and the lessee may thereupon quit and surrender possession of the premises.”
I interpret the statute as saying, “If the place goes to shit you don’t have to pay rent and get the hell outta there” Not as you are (very conveniently) interpreting it as “Don’t pay rent and stay here rent free”
Also, the building became “unfit for business”, to no fault of the owner either.
Win what Dan Gibson?
1. Demised premise clauses in leases only apply to the leased space. The landlord has no control over street closures or other outside events. Sue the city Mr. Mennes and good luck with that.
2. The streetcar construction created havoc for everyone on 4th and downtown. Yet businesses like the hub, Elliots, Ches, Skybar, the district, and 47 Scott still payed their rent. There is no excuse. You can parade all the “experts” you want, but it is irrelevant.
3. None of the above gives you free rent nor the ability to illegally possess what is not yours.
4. I would love to see the judge’s face when this BS argument is presented on Monday.
This is not a “demised premise” clause issue. There is a distinction. There is no term ‘demised’ in the language to be considered, its a “damage clause” issue, meaning the subject matter includes the appurtenant elements of the property, and use. But, I don’t think its an issue anyway inasmuch as Holualoa already waived its argument against tenant’s right to abatement by virtue of drafting, signing and tendering an abatement agreement to the tenant. The partially executed agreement did not meet the terms of the leaer and was rejected by tenant. The amount of abatement is subjective but not the abatement. The abatement period runs from the event thru substantial restoration of use.
So basically you are squatting there, refusing to give up the keys, and causing the landlord financial harm because of something they did not do or could not control? Seems pretty shady to me.