Tenant Could Remove Fixtures During Unofficial Extension Period

Facts: A restaurant tenant faced with an eviction order offered the owner of the space $40,000 to extend the time it could use the space after it was supposed to vacate. The tenant wanted to use the extra time to work out a deal with a potential buyer of the restaurant, who planned to use the same space. The deal fell through, however. In the meantime, the tenant tried to remove some of its trade fixtures and equipment; the owner’s representative refused to allow this.

The tenant sued the owner for conversion—that is, essentially taking its belongings without its consent. The tenant and the owner each asked a trial court for a judgment in its favor without a trial. The trial court ruled in favor of the owner. The tenant appealed.

Decision: A Georgia appeals court reversed as to the conversion claim.

Reasoning: The appeals court concluded that a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether the owner, in exchange for the $40,000 payment from the tenant, had inadvertently agreed to extend the tenant’s time of possession—and thereby its right to the trade fixtures and the option to remove them during that time period. A trial was needed to make that determination.

• Heany v. Bennett Street Properties, LP, 2016