Wolff-Fording & Co. is striking back at its landlord after a July lawsuit. Photos by Michael Thompson.
One of the keys to resolving the lawsuit between a shuttered Shockoe Bottom apparel maker and its landlord may hinge on one peculiar question: is a lease invalid if the same person signs on behalf of both parties?
Wolff-Fording & Co., an embattled dance costume manufacturer on East Main Street, filed its response and a counterclaim last month in its going dispute against its landlord Sunset Strip Associates.
In its filing in Richmond Circuit Court, Wolff-Fording made three main requests of the judge: to prevent Sunset Strip from interfering with the company’s possession of the disputed space at 2220 E. Main St.; for an award of damages to Wolff-Fording; or to enter an order finding that no lease agreement between the two parties exists.
The company argues that the lease for the building is not valid because Stuart Feldstein — who, along with his brother Jeffrey Feldstein, controls Sunset Strip — signed the lease agreement on behalf of both the landlord and the tenant.
“No other signatures are on the contract,” the countersuit claims. “No contract between Plaintiff and Defendant ever existed.”
Jeffery and Stuart Feldstein, the landlords and former executives of Wolff-Fording & Co. sued the company’s majority shareholders in July.
The Feldsteins had been the sole owners of Wolff-Fording before selling 60 percent of the company to Vert Capital, a Los Angeles-based private investment firm in June.
The two sides have been at odds since Vert quickly laid off Wolff-Fording’s 118 employees and ceased operations at the 85,000-square-foot facility after taking over the company. The Feldsteins eventually resigned from their positions as Wolff-Fording’s president and vice president.
The Feldsteins, through Sunset Strip, filed a suit in July asking a judge to declare that Wolff-Fording is in default on its lease and to clear a path for liquidation of Wolff-Fording’s belongings in the building. Wolff-Fording has asked for that suit to be dismissed.
Wolff-Fording’s countersuit claims that no rent payments have been missed because the lease agreement states that payments were not due until June 2015. In the original suit, Sunset Strip claimed rent was agreed to be paid June 2014, despite a 2015 start date in the lease included in court documents.
“The issues raised in the counterclaim by the defendants are a distraction and are categorically denied by Sunset Strip,” Bill Bayliss, a Williams Mullen attorney representing Sunset Strip in the case, said in an email. “We have a simple case where the parties entered into a lease in June 2014 and since then the tenant has failed to make a single payment to the landlord. The lease is in default and no excuse can cure this default and that is the sole issue that this court is being asked to deal with.”
Joseph Blackburn III of Williams Mullen is also a Sunset Strip attorney in the case.
Wolff-Fording’s counterclaim alleges that Sunset Strip breached the terms of the lease by changing the locks on the property and caused Wolff-Fording to miss out on prospective business while unfairly profiting at the costume maker’s expense.
Read Wolff-Fording’s response (PDF).
“Once defendants were finally allowed back on the premises to present opportunities to potential business partners, they were harassed by plaintiff’s owner Jeffrey Feldstein in the presence of potential business partners,” the suit claims.
Christopher Winslow of Midlothian-based firm Winslow & McCurry is representing Wolff-Fording in the case. He would not comment.
Vert Capital could not be reached for comment on the case.
Wolff-Fording also argues that Sunset Strip can’t make claims against it because the landlord unjustly profited at Wolff-Fording’s expense, breached the lease, and failed to properly mitigate damages.
“It would be unconscionable for the Plaintiff to enjoy the full benefit of possession of the property after leasing the property to defendant,” the suit claims.
Wolff-Fording & Co. is striking back at its landlord after a July lawsuit. Photos by Michael Thompson.
One of the keys to resolving the lawsuit between a shuttered Shockoe Bottom apparel maker and its landlord may hinge on one peculiar question: is a lease invalid if the same person signs on behalf of both parties?
Wolff-Fording & Co., an embattled dance costume manufacturer on East Main Street, filed its response and a counterclaim last month in its going dispute against its landlord Sunset Strip Associates.
In its filing in Richmond Circuit Court, Wolff-Fording made three main requests of the judge: to prevent Sunset Strip from interfering with the company’s possession of the disputed space at 2220 E. Main St.; for an award of damages to Wolff-Fording; or to enter an order finding that no lease agreement between the two parties exists.
The company argues that the lease for the building is not valid because Stuart Feldstein — who, along with his brother Jeffrey Feldstein, controls Sunset Strip — signed the lease agreement on behalf of both the landlord and the tenant.
“No other signatures are on the contract,” the countersuit claims. “No contract between Plaintiff and Defendant ever existed.”
Jeffery and Stuart Feldstein, the landlords and former executives of Wolff-Fording & Co. sued the company’s majority shareholders in July.
The Feldsteins had been the sole owners of Wolff-Fording before selling 60 percent of the company to Vert Capital, a Los Angeles-based private investment firm in June.
The two sides have been at odds since Vert quickly laid off Wolff-Fording’s 118 employees and ceased operations at the 85,000-square-foot facility after taking over the company. The Feldsteins eventually resigned from their positions as Wolff-Fording’s president and vice president.
The Feldsteins, through Sunset Strip, filed a suit in July asking a judge to declare that Wolff-Fording is in default on its lease and to clear a path for liquidation of Wolff-Fording’s belongings in the building. Wolff-Fording has asked for that suit to be dismissed.
Wolff-Fording’s countersuit claims that no rent payments have been missed because the lease agreement states that payments were not due until June 2015. In the original suit, Sunset Strip claimed rent was agreed to be paid June 2014, despite a 2015 start date in the lease included in court documents.
“The issues raised in the counterclaim by the defendants are a distraction and are categorically denied by Sunset Strip,” Bill Bayliss, a Williams Mullen attorney representing Sunset Strip in the case, said in an email. “We have a simple case where the parties entered into a lease in June 2014 and since then the tenant has failed to make a single payment to the landlord. The lease is in default and no excuse can cure this default and that is the sole issue that this court is being asked to deal with.”
Joseph Blackburn III of Williams Mullen is also a Sunset Strip attorney in the case.
Wolff-Fording’s counterclaim alleges that Sunset Strip breached the terms of the lease by changing the locks on the property and caused Wolff-Fording to miss out on prospective business while unfairly profiting at the costume maker’s expense.
Read Wolff-Fording’s response (PDF).
“Once defendants were finally allowed back on the premises to present opportunities to potential business partners, they were harassed by plaintiff’s owner Jeffrey Feldstein in the presence of potential business partners,” the suit claims.
Christopher Winslow of Midlothian-based firm Winslow & McCurry is representing Wolff-Fording in the case. He would not comment.
Vert Capital could not be reached for comment on the case.
Wolff-Fording also argues that Sunset Strip can’t make claims against it because the landlord unjustly profited at Wolff-Fording’s expense, breached the lease, and failed to properly mitigate damages.
“It would be unconscionable for the Plaintiff to enjoy the full benefit of possession of the property after leasing the property to defendant,” the suit claims.