BANGOR, Maine — The moving vans haven’t started backing up to the entrance yet, but barring a successful appeal, the Diamonds gentleman’s club at 190 Harlow St. has effectively been evicted.
District Court Judge Jessie Gunther ruled Friday in favor of CEL LLC — the rental management company owned by Tom Brann and sons Patrick Brann and Matthew Brann — and found that Arayos LLC, the owner of the Diamonds club and franchise, owes the Branns $35,466.
“We appreciate the decision, and I think it was a fair ruling,” said Tom Brann, a forest resources professor at the University of Maine and Hampden town councilor.
Arayos also was found to be in violation of its lease and subject to eviction.
Arayos manages the club — featuring a bar, a DJ and scantily clad female dancers — which opened Feb. 22.
“The court judgment says a writ of possession will issue in seven days,” said Seth Harrow of Bangor, attorney for the Branns. “They also have a 30-day right of appeal, but there are provisions in the law for my client to take back the property in less than 30 days.”
Jim Tower, identified in court documents as “principal of Arayos,” said the club has not closed and he and Arayos will pursue an appeal.
“I believe an appeal was filed today,” he said Monday afternoon. “We are definitely open for business and the appeal will speak for itself.”
Tower, former member of the Glenburn Economic Development Committee, wouldn’t say much about the court decision.
“The court moves in mysterious ways. The decision was unexpected,” said Tower, who is also a registered Maine engineer.
When reached earlier Monday, Arayos attorney Charles Gilbert of Bangor was reluctant to comment on the ruling in the eviction lawsuit until it was publicly released by the court. Attempts to reach him after a copy of the decision was obtained were unsuccessful.
It was Gilbert’s contention in the eviction hearing at Penobscot Judicial Center last Tuesday that CEL was in breach of the lease because Arayos had to spend $106,000 to make alterations, repairs and improvements in the property’s electrical, plumbing and fire alarm systems to bring it up to code and secure a certificate of occupancy from city officials.
Harrow and the Branns maintained that any such alterations, improvements and changes — as spelled out in terms of the lease — were to be done at the tenant’s expense.
“In terms of the key issues to the case, I think my clients followed the terms of the lease to the letter, making sure things were done appropriately,” said Harrow. “I would say Arayos has a very good lawyer. He argued on behalf of his clients very well and made an issue of several things, but the bottom line was Arayos did not pay the rent and did not follow terms of the lease to a T.”
Another factor weighing in the Branns’ favor with the court was a written lease requirement that the tenant would be permitted to make structural alterations “only if it shall first have obtained the prior written consent of the landlord.”
Because of the dispute, Arayos elected not to pay the rent from January onward, instead putting those payments in escrow. Arayos also filed a lawsuit against CEL last month.
Gunther said in her written decision that Arayos went forward with the electrical, plumbing and fire alarm work on its own, and “presented the plaintiff with a fait accompli and the bill. The defendant [Arayos] cannot put plaintiff in breach by undertaking construction without consent, and then claim a default for the failure to reimburse its costs.”
Gunther ruled that Arayos owed CEL $39,766, minus an $1,800 oil bill paid by Arayos and $2,500 as part of the fire alarm upgrade cost CEL agreed to share.
“The work was done without any proper notice given to my client. A lot more communication would have gone a long way in this case,” Harrow said.
I can’t imagine a more clear example of a company that seemed intent on losing a bunch of money. The business model was all wrong, they dumped a huge amount of money into a renovation that was far more than it needed to be, and they immediately got behind on their bills. This seems like a front.
according to the story it seems as though he does have the money to pay:
“Because of the dispute, Arayos elected not to pay the rent from January onward, instead putting those payments in escrow.”
Apparently you never heard of The Hub. They ran a front page and center ad in the Edge announcing their “opening” – they opened 4 months after their advertised Grand Opening.
Hmmm, I find myself thinking of “The Producers” here. Just wondering.
looks like mr.brann got his building up to code for free
the building was up to code.. however when you knock down walls and create bigger rooms, the codes change. and its not the landlords responsibility to pay for those changes if they are made by the occupant
In our building, owned by Epstein’s, any changes made during our occupancy are at our cost. Commercial buildings are not like residential rentals. Every contract I have ever seen says that any changes we make to the space are on our dime. When they started changing the space, they changed the needs for the plumbing and electrical systems. That’s on them.
You are all talking apples to oranges (besides cheaptrick). Yes Diamonds made significant changes to the club, however, the argument in part is that part of the 106,000 was spent toward making the club up to code and, assuming none of us are code officers here, we do not know prior to the lease agreement whether the building was up to code or not.
I agree with you Justin, not that it matters, cause the Code Enforcement officer is in the pocket of the City Council. If the building going in before any remodeling was done, was NOT UP TO CODE, which i truly believe it wasnt, than, in my honest opinion, those renovations should have at least been split by the landlord and tenant. Unfortunately, with the City Council being in cahoots with what the Casino wants, Diamonds had very little chance here. Once the Arena is built, the Casino will be bringing in Vegas Showgirls, and Shows to up the ante of their take on incomes of Maine people. Having an alternative place to go is money OUT of their pockets. Naturally, i am sure that the Casino is happy to see them go just as they were Diva’s.
Being up to code depends on the use of space, which is why it typically is at the tenant’s expense. Whomever rents this space afterwards may have to make all kinds of alterations to again make it to code for their use, if you are a landlord and start paying for those changes you never make a dime.
It really doesn’t matter if that is true or not. It’s bad business practices or poor planning. If I were to lease a building in hopes of opening a business, much like buying a home, I would have it inspected by the Code Enforcement Officer to see what, if any, updates it was going to need, and that have those types of details addressed in the lease, or I would choose not to lease that property if it needed too much work.
I’m still wondering what the Diamonds folks were citing in the lease that supported their claim that they were owed the fix-up costs towards their rent.
I take it there isn’t a transcript of the court hearing available online?
True. All this time, the Diamonds folks have been saying they totally have the rent, but just have been putting it aside until the conflict is settled.
PS: For some reason, this ended up as its own comment, instead of as a reply to Millicent. Quelle mysterious.
The place and location will always be a seedy second rate dump. Polish a pile of dog doo all day long, it’s still dog doo.
Isn’t this the stripper bar where that “pillar of the community” JR Mitchell was DJ-ing? It’ll be good to hear less of him and and his inflated ego braying on yet another live microphone.
The guy from Q106.5?
You mean those granite countertops didn’t attract enough people?
They were installed just in case a dancer with a GVWR greater than that of a Suburban performed.
Haven’t The Brann’s been down this path again and again. I just wonder how they keep finding tenants who would rent from them ? They get their property upgraded and boot out the tenant. I bet once The Brann’s saw a successful business being operated that they would of raised the rent , one way or another. The next blind tenant will be paying a lot more in rent as its all done for them, free of charge minus some lawyer fees. It appears that it is one big scam. Renter’s beware. in downtown Bangor.
Leases are in place for a reason, to protect both parties involved. If you choose not to follow the lease, because you feel that you are entitled to something different, you will still be legally bound by the content of the lease. Leases are clearly explained, any good business person should be able to understand the details of the lease, and if they don’t agree with it, then don’t sign it, and don’t lease that property. Pretty easy concept. Diamonds put a whole lot more than $106,000 into renovating this property and starting the business, why anyone would sink over $300,000 into that type of business that has little chance of doing the kind of volume it would need to be profitable, is beyond me. Sounds like bad business practices to me.
i agree. good paper makes good friends. no question that way if it is on paper.
Strip clubs in Maine are Talmar.
I say that its only proper the tenant take out all the materials that he paid for if he isnt going to be reimbursed for them
But if the tenant strips the inside of materials, wouldn’t he then have to put back up walls and remodel it back to the condition it was in when he rented it? And what would he do with renovations that have been installed and then removed from the building? It seems to me that the best thing he can do is just move on and learn a lesson from this about abiding by the terms of an agreement that he willingly signed.
The building was of code when the lease was signed. Diamonds chose to increase the size of the space to accommodate a larger capacity. When a tenet seeks a larger capacity they are responsible for any changes that need to be made in order to obtain the necessary occupancy license. Diamonds simply made the changes they wanted, and then expected the landlord to pay for the upgrades. That is not right and that is what the judge found to be true. While in the meantime Diamonds chose not to pay rent, oil, taxes, water…the list goes on. The Brann’s are not in the business to rent a space just to loose all their money in lawyer fees. They just want a tenet to pay rent. There is always more to a story than what is written in the Bangor Daily News, keep that in mind before you post uninformed opinions.