Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Eviction Dispossessory topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Judge denies InTown Suites' motion to compel rent; dispossessory denied after alternative cure practice
Summary
In a dispossessory and motion-to-compel hearing, the court found InTown Suites had repeatedly accepted late payments and cure attempts and denied the hotel's motion to compel payment into the registry and to evict a long-term guest, ruling in favor of the defendant.
On May 7, 2025, Judge Tammy Long Hayward heard argument in InTown Suites Management Inc. v. Marilyn Gohburn (also recorded under similar name variants in the transcript), a dispossessory matter in which the extended-stay operator sought an order compelling weekly payments into the court registry and return of possession.
Counsel for InTown Suites, who identified the property's folio and lease as exhibits, said the defendant switched from a weekly to a daily (stayover) rate and had multiple late payments on Jan. 30, Jan. 31, Feb. 1 and Feb. 3. Company counsel calculated the daily stay-over rate at $69.30, a weekly equivalent of $485.10, and sought about $6,791.40 in arrears through the hearing date; the company asked the court to require weekly payments into the registry and ultimately to obtain possession.
The defendant — who told the court she had been a guest at the same InTown Suites since 2018 and said she normally paid on time — said she attempted to pay when required but was refused use of a card on file after new management arrived. She said InTown attendants called police and later refused her payment on Feb. 4; she asked for time to move and objected to having an eviction on her record when she said she had attempted to pay.
Judge Hayward reviewed the lease language on the record, noting the lease requires room charges to be paid in advance and contains an 11:01 a.m. deadline for due payments. The judge also noted that the hotel had, in practice, accepted late payments and late-fee cures and that the plaintiff had not provided a clear contractual basis on the face of the guest agreement to treat the late-fee practice as a ground for dispossessory after cure. "You don't get to take her money saying I'm a cure the late and then dispossess her based on her being late," the judge said, and she found in favor of the defendant.
The court denied the motion to compel payment into the registry and declined to enter dispossessory relief based on the record presented. The judge explained that because the hotel had accepted late payments and cure opportunities in practice, it had effectively permitted a form of cure; the hotel could not then rely on those same late payments as the sole basis for eviction in the manner presented.
Why it matters: The ruling signals that landlords' on-the-ground payment practices and any informal cures or accommodations can affect a dispossessory claim. Even when lease language sets a payment deadline, a court may look to the parties' course of performance when assessing whether a landlord retained the right to treat past late payments as a basis for eviction.
What to expect next: The transcript records the judge's bench ruling in favor of the defendant; the hotel may refile if it chooses and if it proceeds according to lease terms and statutory requirements. The defendant asked the court for time to move; the court noted its statutory authority limits a post-eviction grace period to seven days if a dispossessory were granted.
