Pool bar owner wins second court case: Marty vs Alegria: 2-0

POSTED: 10/5/15 1:38 PM

St. Maarten – Alegria Real Estate lost a second court case against Marty Dijkhuis, the operator of the Dream Pool Bar at the resort on Beacon Hill. Yesterday the Court in First Instance ruled in summary proceedings that “based on provisional judgment it cannot be established that there is an arrear in rent payments.” Alegria wanted to kick Dijkhuis out because it claimed rent arrears in excess of $6,350.

The court established that the rent Dijkhuis pays for the bar are profit-dependent. That is to say, he pays rent as a percentage of his monthly profits.

According to Alegria the rent over the period September 15, 2014 to June 30, 2015, was $8,333.80. Dijkhuis paid $1,978.11.

At the court hearing on September 16, Alegria’s attorney Metin Unsal, said that the profit is calculated as sales minus the cost of purchased goods. Dijkhuis contested that calculation and the court agreed with him: “Alegria say incorrectly that the rent is calculated based on the monthly turnover minus the monthly purchase. From the rent agreement it appears that costs for inventory, emergency provisions and personnel are part of the costs Dijkhuis is allowed to include.”

The court ruling states that Dijkhuis wrote checks based on this calculation and that Alegria has accepted them. “In August there was a loss, so there was no rent due.”

The court notes that parties have different opinions about the rent arrears. “It is clear that Dijkhuis pays rent regularly and that the agreement leaves room for a situation whereby no rent is due in a certain month.”

The court did not want to go into an interpretation of the rent agreement and advised parties to dispute this matter in a regular court procedure, “rather than go at each other in summary proceedings.”

Alegria had also argued that Dijkhuis does not have the necessary permits to operate the pool bar and that he is not insured. Dijkhuis countered there allegations based on documents. “The court will not go into this issue because the alleged lack of permits and insurance does not justify the vacation of the premises.”

The court rejected Dijkhuis’ demand that Alegria repairs damages to the pool bar, because this demand had already been granted in a court case in June.

Did you like this? Share it:
Pool bar owner wins second court case: Marty vs Alegria: 2-0 by

What do you say? Leave a comment