Public Storage Fiduciary Agreement

(a) harasses, abuses, pursues, threatens, defames or otherwise violates or violates the rights of any other party (including, but not limited to, rights of publicity or other proprietary rights); The defendant`s next argument on appeal is that the trial court`s finding that Metropublic violated Illinois` Consumer Fraud Act violated the obvious weight of the evidence. The appropriate standard of proof for a legal fraud action is the preponderance of evidence. Hanson-Suminksi v. Rohrman Midwest Motors, Inc., 386 ills. App.3d 585, 592 (2008). A statement proven by a preponderance of evidence is one that has proven to be true rather than true. Hanson-Suminski, 386 figs. App.3d at 592. Metropublic and Dubey both filed a series of applications after the trial, all of which were rejected by the trial court. Metropublic is now appealing; Dubey filed a cross-appeal. • 2 Although the defendant did not expressly define the relationship between the parties as landlord and tenant in the lease, “the absence of contractual wording to the contrary is deemed to be part of the contract as part of the contract.” Jewelers Mutual Insurance Co. v.

Firstar Bank Illinois, 341 Ill. App.3d 14, 18-19 (2003). At the time of the lease, the Landlord and Tenant Act stated: Self Storage Locker Agreement a storage company 130 commercial court, calgary, alberta t3z 2a5 tel. (403) 217-9727 fax (403) 217-5414 astoragecompany office use only customer: by name first name middle initial locker size: address 1:. With respect to the second fact, we examine the trial court`s reasons for imposing punitive damages to determine whether its decision that the defendants acted fraudulently, maliciously or in a manner that justifies punitive damages was contrary to the obvious weight of proof. The trial court based its decision that punitive damages were warranted for the prosecution under the Act on the following evidence: that Metropublic was indifferent to Dubey`s loss of property, that Metropublic was unwilling to take steps to determine what had happened during that situation, that company policy showed a lack of care for what had happened in Dubey`s situation, that there may have been tricks or deceptions during the course of the case, and that Metropublic limited the value of the items stored to $5,000, but encouraged people to rent a large unit, knowing full well that these people had a significant amount of property. We note that the award of punitive damages by the Court of First Instance for the above reasons did not affect the obvious weight of proof. Evidence of Metropublic`s general policy was also presented. If a mistake was made in a lease, for example. B a change in the number of a rental unit, a manager was allowed to scratch and initialize something, but a tenant also did not have to initialize it.

A property manager could make changes without consulting a supervisor. Metropublic was aware of more than one case in which a tenant placed their property in an entity different from the one specified in the lease. Before taking legal action against us in a forum, you first agree to attempt to resolve the dispute informally by notifying us of your claim by sending an email to or by sending a letter to the Dispute Resolution Department, 701 Western Avenue, Glendale, California 91201. The notice must explicitly describe the nature of the dispute and the remedy you are seeking. You grant us sixty (60) days from the date we received your notice to attempt to resolve the dispute. Either party may make a claim if the dispute is not resolved after sixty (60) days. You and Public Storage agree that any dispute, claim or controversy between you and Public Storage arising out of or in any way connected with the relationship between you and Public Storage, including your use of Public Storage`s online bill payment service, will be governed by binding (non-class) individual arbitration. You and Public Storage further agree that the arbitrator shall have exclusive authority to rule in its own jurisdiction, including any objection to the existence, scope or validity of the arbitration agreement or the arbitrability of any claim or counterclaim.

By agreeing to arbitrate, both parties waive the right to sue in court. Arbitration is a method of settling claims that is less formal than a traditional court procedure. THERE IS NO JUDGE OR JURY IN ARBITRATION, AND JUDICIAL REVIEW OF AN ARBITRAL AWARD IS LIMITED. There may be a more limited discovery than in court. The arbitrator shall comply with this Agreement and may award the same damages and remedies as in court, except that the arbitrator may not grant any remedy, including declaratory or injunctive relief, to any person other than the parties to the arbitration. This arbitration provision shall survive the termination of the Agreement. Metropublic argues, relying on Verndock v. Scopes, 226 Fig. App.3d 484, 491 (1992), that if punitive damages are measured twice for the same conduct, this is an inadmissible double recovery or an excessive penalty.

In Verndock, the court found that the plaintiff could not receive both punitive and triple statutory damages for consumer fraud under the common law, since that double compensation amounted to a double penalty for the same misconduct. . . .