.

Aroma di Roma Closed After Owner's Lease Expired

Landlord would not renew ADR's lease despite timely payments, and other property owners who tried to help the espresso and brunch favorite say the evicted business was successful.

Aroma di Roma is out of its longtime Italian flag-colored spot at Second Street and Pomona Avenue, but promised on its Facebook page over the weekend to be operating soon nearby.

Two commercial property owners familiar with the situation said Aroma owner Tim Terrell ran a very successful business and paid his bills on time, but his landlord would not renew his lease when it recently expired.

Kurt Schneiter and Bill Lorbeer, themselves landlords with a formidable amount of Second Street property, told Patch Friday that they tried for several months to either help Terrell stay or relocate him into one of their buildings, to no avail. (Terrell could not immediately be reached).

Lorbeer said that Aroma di Roma was required to leave and it will be replaced by another coffee-serving company. The once-popular patio and frontage were gated by as early as Thursday but readers were asking Patch by Friday morning.

Schneiter said he admires Terrell as a successful businessman who had gone to the investment and various travails inherent in starting a new business, and had come out the other side strongly.

 "I can tell you as a property owner on the street, it's hard to see somebody whose brought so much, such a quality business, to our community, and not get his lease renewed, Schneiter said Friday night. "If I had space for Tim I'd put him in a space without thinking twice."

He went on, "He's just an asset to the community, and he's created a nice business."

So it wasn't that Terrell was missing payments? "No, no, no, that's never been the issue. It's a matter of someone wanting him out and someone else in there."

But Terrell will be reopened for business soon, he assured Aroma's Facebook fans:

"To our Valued Customers:

Aroma di Roma expects to reopen here in a few short days. We appreciate your business and apologize for any difficulties or inconvenience our unexpected closing may have caused.

Soon we’ll be moving and reopening in a new-and-improved Belmont Shore location. 

We thank you for your continued support."

John B. Greet October 22, 2012 at 03:13 PM
So who is the landlord? Unless I missed it, this article does not seem to make that clear.
Jim Jones October 22, 2012 at 03:56 PM
Has anyone seen the eviction on the door? The lease may have been up but the landlord has to pay a sheriff to post the eviction letter on the door and that only happens when you don't pay your bills. Also if you ask anyone who has worked for Tim you will find out that he does not pay his bills in a timely matter, he was always late. I'm surprised he did not close down earlier.
John Palmero October 22, 2012 at 04:00 PM
It would be interesting to know who the landlord is.
Mike Ruehle October 22, 2012 at 06:03 PM
The LA County Tax Assessor's office indicates Aroma De Roma has Assessor ID number 7249-018-029. http://maps.assessor.lacounty.gov/mapping/viewer.asp A google search of that ID number indicates the owner to be DEKK Associates LP. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&ved=0CCgQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.neptunecompany.com%2Fimg%2Fbonds%2Fseries%2F1198%2FEP355231-EP53722-EP675959.pdf&ei=MoOFUN_dG4znigLdqYHIDg&usg=AFQjCNHki_pegwQHYqklOkMTUPh3g3I9Jg&sig2=QtP6bPbcz5iH4n1pcjmteQ CorporationWiki indicates DEKK is managed by Tiger Management, INC. http://www.corporationwiki.com/California/Los-Angeles/d-e-k-k-associates-l-p/45806567.aspx The California Secretary of State website indicates Eugene and Daphne Kurchak are the owners of DEKK and Tiger Management. http://kepler.sos.ca.gov/cbs.aspx
Mike Ruehle October 22, 2012 at 06:35 PM
71 year old Daphne S Kurchak and 81 year old Eugene Kurchak own several commercial properties and live in their multi-$million home in Brentwood at 640 N. Tigertail Road, Los Angeles-Brentwood, CA 90049. http://losangeles.blockshopper.com/property/4494002010/640_n_tigertail/ You may find either of them at the polo club or one of their several commercial developoments in LA and Orange Counties. http://articles.latimes.com/1989-08-13/news/vw-515_1_polo-player http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CC8QFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fsan-clemente.org%2Fsc%2FMeetings%2FCityCouncil%2FPackets%2FDownload%2FOldPackets%2F11-17-09%2F06D%252011-17-09%2520-%2520Conversion%2520of%2520Parking%2520Resources%2520-%2520Nicks%2520Restaurant.pdf&ei=iY6FUPaOE4G1iwKb84FI&usg=AFQjCNH_AP4rxluR7pzYwRiRWsdUJiMtYw
Nancy Wride (Editor) October 22, 2012 at 08:05 PM
Mike, thank you for all the information about the owners of the building, as I ran out of time, but wanted to put what I knew out there for just this reason. I spoke to the two other property owners late enough Friday night that the clock ran out, and with all the other news of the weekend, and my son's Hollywood all-day birthday celebration Saturday, and Sunday's power outage, the Aroma story got pushed until late Sunday night. Sorry for that, folks!
Nancy Wride (Editor) October 22, 2012 at 09:21 PM
Folks, this is a forum for civil discussion about stories and issues important to the community, and all of this added information further informs the situation for readers. But we can't have allegations or personal attacks in these discussions, so please abide by our Patch guidelines.
John B. Greet October 22, 2012 at 09:45 PM
Thanks for the reminder, Nancy!
Mark Keough October 22, 2012 at 10:14 PM
I understand Saga and Sweet Jills have also lost their leases and are closing to be replaced by a fast food place. Saga is relocating elsewhere on 2nd; is Sweet Jill's also relocating?
Nancy Wride (Editor) October 22, 2012 at 11:25 PM
When last we spoke to Sweet Jill's they were relocating on 2nd Street: http://belmontshore.patch.com/articles/good-news-future-of-sweet-jill-s-no-longer-imperiled
Mike Ruehle October 23, 2012 at 01:33 AM
You censor my comments alleging corruption and misconduct of Mayor appointed city Commissioners (public figures) by calling it a personal attack, yet allow name-calling personal attacks of me to stay posted???????? Why don't you ask Tim Terrell why he quit the Belmont Shore Parking Commission and see if he tells you the same thing he told me? It's guess its so much easier to just post what Lorbeer and Schneiter spew than actually looking into it. After all, they wouldn't have an agenda would they.
John B. Greet October 23, 2012 at 03:27 AM
sigh....
Roxanne Brown October 23, 2012 at 02:29 PM
So sad to hear the Belmont shore is becoming more of a Fast Food and Corporation Coffee House. I was sad to leave this year and moved to Long Beach, WA. However, the decline was already starting to show. Now reading about whats happened to Belmont Shore's, long time and small businesses, I don't feel it's going in the right direction anyway. Belmont Shore use to be unique with it's diversified small business. Sounds like that's going Bye Bye. I guess you call that Progress I think of it as a slow death to a once Small Business Area. Hope it;s not another $5 a cup Starbucks.
jane October 23, 2012 at 04:49 PM
work has begun at the 5001 2nd Street
jane October 23, 2012 at 04:50 PM
There are several employees who are still awaiting paychecks as well
William Lorbeer October 23, 2012 at 07:01 PM
I rarely make comments to online forums, but there is so much misinformation in the prior comments that (intentionally or not) negatively and unfairly effect Tim Terrel, I can't remain silent. First, we have been working with Tim to help him find a suitable new location for Aroma di Roma. We support small, unique, locally-owned, independent businesses which help make Belmont Shore the special place it has been and remains. Moreover, we are confident that Aroma di Roma will be reopening in a better location in the very near future. As an attorney and landlord, I have a significant amount of experience in landlord-tenant law and can say with certainty that not all evictions are about money or because a tenant didn't pay rent. Tenants can be evicted for a number of reasons, including when a lease or rental term expires. So to infer that an eviction notice or paying the Sheriff to process a "lock-out" implies the tenant wasn't paying his bills ("only happens when you don't pay your bills") is just wrong and an unfair and inappropriate characterization of Tim. Further, with the sudden nature of an eviction lock-out, it should not be a surprise that some employees and venders have outstanding balances or that these will be paid without haste. Tim's former landlord, Mr. Kurchak, is an elderly man in poor health who hired an aggressive RE broker to manage his properties. This broker put his own interest above Tim's, and sought a new tenant and bigger commission.
Mike Ruehle October 24, 2012 at 01:14 AM
Lorbeer, when did you be come an attorney??? You have made this claim before and have NOT explained why you have NEVER been listed on the State Bar of California web site. Maybe you can tell everyone when exactly it was you passed the Bar Exam which is a requirement in the state of California to be an attorney? Are you going by an assumed name like Mason or Shapiro? http://members.calbar.ca.gov/fal/MemberSearch/QuickSearch?FreeText=lorbeer&SoundsLike=false&x=0&y=0 While you are at it, why don't YOU state YOUR opinion of why Terrell quit the Parking Commission while you were the Chairman. Let's see if it matches up with Terrell's version of why he quit.
John B. Greet October 24, 2012 at 04:23 AM
...sigh...
William Lorbeer October 24, 2012 at 04:29 AM
Apparently, you aren't aware that the designation "attorney" or "lawyer" generally refers to a person obtaining a Juris Doctorate (JD) degree - not whether they are admitted to a bar association. There are an awful lot of attorneys and lawyers who do not practice law, which would require admission to a bar association. Not that you need to know, but I will provide the information to illustrate that you are once again "out of your element." I graduated from WSU School of Law in December 2001 (with honors) and took and passed the July 2002 bar exam (first time). I am not a Cal Bar admitted attorney because I do not and never intended to practice law (i.e., represent others and bill them for my time). However, I can and do represent myself and my family. Pursuant to Tim's actual letter of resignation, he was having some difficulties at work and need to spend more time there. Not that anyone really cares why Tim resigned, I'm sure you will now tell us all the "real" reason Tim resigned . . . because we all know only you have all the true and correct answers to lifes mysteries.
William Lorbeer October 24, 2012 at 04:32 AM
BTW, this is exactly why I rarely make comment to online forums. Such a ridiculous waste of time.
Mike Ruehle October 24, 2012 at 09:09 AM
If you took and passed the California bar exam, how come it doesn't show up on the State Bar of California website? If you are not a Cal Bar admitted attorney as YOU state, why do YOU advertise your self as an attorney? If Tim resigned from the Parking Commission chaired by you because "he was having some difficulties at work," why did he tell me he quit because you and the Vice Chairman pressured him before commission meetings to vote as you wanted?
Shore Resident October 24, 2012 at 03:17 PM
Mike, do you read before you spew? Mr. Lorbeer clearly stated (to most of us) that he was admitted to the State of WASHINGTON Bar. He also stated and I quote "I am not a Cal Bar admitted attorney because I do not and never intended to practice law..." As he is admitted in Washington, Mr. Lorbeer is, indeed, and attorney, though not admitted in California.
Panglonymous October 24, 2012 at 04:16 PM
This is a strange little 'hood - but probably no stranger than most. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3xXQcoDV_U
Mike Ruehle October 24, 2012 at 07:39 PM
WSU stands for WESTERN STATE UNIVERSITY in Fullerton California, NOT Washington State University. By the way, WSU was not an was NOT an American Bar Association accredited college in 2001 when Lorbeer claims to have graduated. http://www.wsulaw.edu/ Lorbeer would have spelled this out and NOT tryed to be so misleading if he was proud of his claimed accomplishment and if what he said were true.
Nancy Wride (Editor) October 24, 2012 at 09:51 PM
I have deleted one comment just now which violated our terms of use. Keep on point with the story and related issues and concerns, please, signed Patch Big Nurse.
Mike Ruehle October 25, 2012 at 06:21 PM
According to Lorbeer's definition, EVERYONE can claim to be an attorney. Most people don't understand a person DOESN'T have to attend a law school to pass the bar exam and be a practicing attorney. While law school helps to prepare, it is not required to take the bar exam. Anybody who registers and pays the fees can take the bar exam. The distiction is IF they pass, they are an attorney in California. If they don't pass, they are not an attorney. Otherwise, EVERYONE is an attorney just like Lorbeer.
Mark Keough October 25, 2012 at 09:37 PM
Okay, time for some facts. Not everyone can take the Cal Bar Exam. Here are the legal education requirements from the state bar website: J. D. degree from a law school accredited by the State Bar of California or approved by the ABA; Four years of study at a fixed-facility law school registered with the Committee; Four years of study, with a minimum of 864 hours of preparation and study per year, at an unaccredited distance-learning or correspondence law school registered with the Committee; Four years of study in the law office/judge’s chambers study program; or A combination of these methods. The fourth option is like an apprentiship and rarely happens, and must be supervised by a judge or attorney. There is also a "baby bar" that attendees of unaccredited law schools must take after their first year in order to eventually sit for the big bar. 99.99% of the attorneys in this state graduated from law school and took the bar. Including me.
Mike Ruehle October 25, 2012 at 11:35 PM
I understand there is a "general education" requirement, but please show me where "Four years of study at a fixed-facility law school registered with the Committee" is a REQUIREMENT to take the bar exam. Unless something has recently changed, California, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington are all states that allow a person to take the bar without first graduating law school. I agree that person must have apprenticed under a lawyer or judge for a period of time, but I repeat, law school is NOT a requirement. While some consider the bar exam difficult, idiotic, poorly written, and useless may be better descriptions. Many reasonably intelligent people with a good grasp of core skills (logical reasoning, reading, and writing) could pass the exam after a few months of self study. Knowledge of law has little to do with passing the bar exam.
Mark Keough October 26, 2012 at 04:47 PM
Sorry Mike, check out the California Bar web site under requirements to take the Bar. I cut and pasted the requirment into my earlier comment. Either law school (accredited or unaccredited including on-line approved schools) or a sanctioned internship (very rare). Better yet, call 'em up or have a friend with no law school try to register for the next exam. The dead line for the February exam is December. Law school is supposed to teach "legal reasoning," which is different that logical reasoning. The exam is no joke. It is the hardest in the nation. When I passed, the pass rate was 29%. A full three days with essays, the most difficult multiple choice I have ever seen, etc. You must know hornbook and statutory law in criminal law, criminal procedure (federal and state), torts, contracts, civil procedure, corporations, wills and trusts, constitutional law, community property, real property, evidence, agency, and probably others I have forgotten. If you can walk in off the street knowing these I am truly impressed. Oh yes, their is a legal ethics exam you must pass too. Questions like, what do you do if your client admits he/she commited a crime?
John B. Greet October 26, 2012 at 05:34 PM
And this is precisely the risk of engaging with folks (no names mentioned) who routinely post personal attacks, unfounded allegations, and unsubstantiated accusations on this site and others. What started as an article about a 2nd Street business closing has now been completely diverted into a debate about the requirements to take and pass the California Bar exam. I think people who initiate such diversions (no names mentioned), intentionally seek to divert attention from the actual issues at hand, solely to gather attention to themselves and in furtherence of their sad and hateful need to impugn and castigate others. I am quickly coming to the realization that the very best response to such people is to simply ignore them. If it truly is attention that they crave, perhaps depriving them of that will cause them to either alter their counter-productive approaches to public debate and dialog or, at the very least, encourage them to move on to other public fora where their un-constructive rhetorical nonsense is better tolerated. Food for thought...

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »