Tyra Banks‘ Smize & Dream Faces $2.8 Million Lawsuit: A Deep Dive into the D.C. Lease Dispute
Supermodel Tyra Banks and her business partner, Louis Martin, are embroiled in a significant legal battle with a Washington D.C. landlord, Christopher Powell. The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court, alleges breach of contract related to a 10-year lease for a Smize & Dream ice cream shop. The claimed damages? A hefty $2.8 million.
This isn’t just a celebrity spat; it highlights the complexities of commercial leasing and the potential pitfalls of rapid business expansion. Let’s break down everything you need to know about this developing situation.
From Dubai to D.C.: The Rise of Smize & Dream
Smize & Dream began as a mobile ice cream venture in Dubai, quickly followed by a pre-packaged shop in Los Angeles. The brand gained traction, and D.C. was strategically chosen as the location for its first U.S. pop-up shop, with New York City slated to follow. Banks herself cited inspiration from her mother and her brother’s long-term residency in D.C. as key factors in the decision.
But the D.C. venture didn’t unfold as planned.
The Lease Agreement and Alleged Abandonment
According to court documents, Powell and the Smize & Dream team – Banks and Martin – reached an agreement in March 2024 to open a shop within Powell’s Eastern Market building. A formal 10-year commercial lease was signed by Martin on April 17, 2024.
However, Powell alleges that banks and Martin abruptly abandoned the property in June 2024, ceasing all dialogue and failing to pay rent. This left Powell in a tough position, having already invested significant financial resources and turned down other potential tenants in anticipation of Smize & Dream’s arrival.
A Pop-Up Appears… Elsewhere
The situation took a notably frustrating turn for Powell when he reportedly saw former Vice President Kamala Harris enjoying ice cream at a different Smize & Dream pop-up location in Woodley Park, D.C.,just weeks after the alleged abandonment. this raised questions about the reasons behind the initial location’s failure and fueled Powell’s legal action. Banks also opened a flagship store in Sydney, Australia in June.
The Core of the Dispute: What Went Wrong?
The lawsuit centers on differing expectations regarding the leased space.Powell claims he only offered two retail spaces and two office spaces on the building’s lower floors.banks and Martin, however, allege they were promised the entire building.
Here’s a timeline of the key events following the initial lease signing:
* June 2024: Banks and Martin allegedly abandon the Eastern Market location.
* September 2024: smize & Dream sends a letter to Powell claiming the lease was breached due to the limited space offered.
* September 9, 2024: A formal notice of lease termination is sent, citing “myriad mechanical, electrical, and plumbing deficiencies” within the building.
* August 2024: Powell demands immediate payment of the full lease amount.
* October 2024: Powell files the $2.8 million lawsuit against School of Smize LLC, Banks, and Martin.
* November 2024: Banks and Martin file a motion to dismiss the lawsuit.
Smize & Dream’s Defense: Building Deficiencies
In their motion to dismiss, Banks and Martin argue that the building was not in “good working order” and suffered from significant mechanical, electrical, and plumbing issues. They claim they notified Powell of these deficiencies in September but received no response until he initiated the lawsuit in August.
They further contend that Powell’s legal action was premature, given his alleged failure to address their concerns.
What Does This Mean for You? (And Commercial Leasing)
This case serves as a cautionary tale for both landlords and tenants.Here are a few key takeaways:
* Specificity is Crucial: Commercial leases must clearly define the scope of the leased space, including any included amenities or services. Ambiguity can lead to costly disputes.
* Due Diligence is Essential: Tenants should thoroughly inspect a property before signing a lease to identify
