Huling vs. GEE: The rent/eviction lawsuit

It was barely a footnote (see comments here) to last week’s coverage of the GEE vs. Huling lawsuit, but geehulingicon.jpgHuling has indeed sued GEE for “unlawful detainer” (eviction) centered on the alleged nonpayment of rent as of the start of September. Since we offered you the chance to read the GEE vs. Huling lawsuit in full, now that we have the paperwork for the Huling vs. GEE lawsuit, we’re posting a link to that one too: 39-page PDF, get it here. Most of this document consists of the GEE lease for the Huling properties, plus the 3-day notice dated September 27th to pay rent or get evicted. (If you’re just joining us, GEE had announced plans to close today, but instead shut down Friday.) Our notes from the first readthrough:

Unlike GEE vs. Huling, the summons/complaint at the heart of Huling vs. GEE isn’t much on narrative. “Exhibit A” is the full text of the GEE lease for the Huling properties. A couple of notes from that — GEE wasn’t supposed to have an “out” for at least four years; the monthly rent began at $90,000 in year 1 and potential annual increases were listed all the way through year 10, when it would have been $129,281. Another side note: Page 35 mentions three firms as purchasing parties in the “asset purchase agreement” in the original Huling-GEE deal: Irish Eagle Investment, True North Companies, Wolff Enterprises. The latter was mentioned by Sharon Huling in her statement posted here hours after both sides’ lawsuits were filed (but before their contents were public).

So what happens now? Since the Huling vs. GEE case is an eviction lawsuit, it proceeds quickly — according to these documents, GEE has until October 15th to respond in writing. The GEE vs. Huling case will likely move more slowly (unless there are negotiations outside the scope of court action); we’ll watch the online dockets for any scheduled court dates. We are also watching the status of the still-pending trial for the three former Huling employees charged in the ripoff case that the GEE lawsuit claims Huling tried to hide till the purchase was well under way (which the Hulings deny): Adrian Dillard, Paul Rimbey, and Ted Coxwell. At this point, they’re expected back in court sometime this month.

11 Replies to "Huling vs. GEE: The rent/eviction lawsuit"

  • Jan October 7, 2007 (2:02 pm)

    aha…two sides to every story….

  • Under Achiever October 7, 2007 (2:37 pm)

    Three sides to every story —

    Yours, mine and the truth.

  • flowerpetal October 7, 2007 (3:51 pm)

    The third party may well be the customers. All of those who for years were satisfied with Huling and more recently Gee; and of course the many unsatisfied customers of both businesses. And a loss to all of West Seattle.
    I drove by there today and the lights are still on. Funny behavior for someone who can’t afford to pay the rent.
    Do you think they will have a close-out sale at “ridiculously low prices!!!”? Special discounts for West Seattle residences only!

  • chas redmond October 7, 2007 (4:33 pm)

    Most of the speculation today at the farmers’ market was on what kind of development would go in there, with most folks “hoping” that at least there would be something like a courtyard, or, better still, a park which was built into whatever dozen or so mixed-use buildings are sure to occupy that turf three or four years from now.

    Kinda funny how Leary west of 15th used to be one of Ballard’s main entry drags and it was all lined with car dealers. Now, it’s all lined with mixed-use development. A way different kind of entry street.

  • westwood October 7, 2007 (5:09 pm)

    I have to say I believe this is where we should target much of the new density. Small pocket parks would be great, but given the traffic here, I think any large park wouldn’t be appropriate.

  • flowerpetal October 7, 2007 (6:33 pm)

    Ooh, you are way ahead of me. I hadn’t thought about what might be for that huge space. I hope this doesn’t cause Blue Star Mgmnt and Whole Foods to reconsider their options.
    And I fear we are in another round of wishing for a Trader Joe’s. I for one would vote to keep them off of our “island”

  • chas redmond October 7, 2007 (6:45 pm)

    Well, keeping Trader Joe’s off the peninsula is laudable, after all, they are moving toward megacorp status. But, they still have quite a few things which no one else has, including the blister peanuts. I’d stop by at least once a month, which is about as often as I get to the south of the airport (Burien, ha!) and it sure would save a lot of carbon-generating car trips. Besides which, with over a hundred thousand of us, there’s plenty of room at the top and bottom. I’d like to see a Red Apple somewhere on Delridge – I think they’re missing a large local market.

  • seattle golfer October 7, 2007 (6:54 pm)

    The Huling’s own the flagship storefront on Fauntleroy, unfortunately they did a cheap remodel of their historic art deco building ten years ago. I feel sorry for the owner of the corner of Alaska and Fauntleroy site of the dealership which Huling and Gee rented. Did they walk out on their rent there too? The small lots on Alaska with the razor wire…Huling doesn’t own them either. He does own the site on 35th at Avalon, The Redline Bar. Looks more like a dmz zone located over a brown field hazodous waste site to me. Six great sites available for someone with some city planning and architectural background to make our triangle area a really nice entee. Hopefully Alki lumber won’t buy these sites, they need to clean up their own, they are in the business of building products but you wouldn’t know it looking at their real estate.

  • WSB October 7, 2007 (7:21 pm)

    seattle golfer, thanks for the tidbit – we didn’t know the Hulings owned the Redline site but just confirmed it in property records. Out of curiosity, going to fish around to see who else owns what in the area.

  • Nancy38 October 9, 2007 (9:49 pm)

    I hope this is the end of the car lots at this location. Let’s face it, the entryway into W.S. could stand a good deal of improvement. One improvement would be no more car lots. With the growth in the last ten years in W.S., the Fauntleroy/Alaska intersection is no longer an appropriate or desirable place for car lots.

  • tom October 17, 2007 (4:03 pm)

    I look forward to the condos that Steve will eventually build along the entry to West Seattle. With all the new store fronts coming it will be nice to walk to them from the posh condo’s he is going to build. Very excited to see what the drawing are going to look like.

Sorry, comment time is over.