SWAMPSCOTT — Lincoln’s Landing is disputing claims that it failed to pay rent, arguing in newly filed court documents that every rent payment at issue was made and accepted by its landlord despite an ongoing effort to evict the longtime Humphrey Street restaurant.
The filing comes about a week after the family behind Lincoln’s Landing publicly disclosed on social media that the restaurant was facing eviction after nearly two decades at its current location, describing the situation as emotionally and financially difficult while asking the community to help identify a new commercial space. The post did not address the specific legal allegations surrounding the eviction.
Instead, those issues are at the center of the restaurant’s response filed Friday in Lynn District Court.
In its answer to the commercial eviction complaint, Lincoln’s Landing denies failing to pay rent and argues that every rent payment cited by the landlord as the basis for the eviction was made. The motion, filed by Jennifer L. Capone, the attorney representing Lincoln’s Landing, states that “all rent payments alleged to be in default were tendered by check, accepted by the Plaintiff, negotiated by Plaintiff, honored by the Defendant’s financial institution, and retained by Plaintiff.”
The commercial eviction case stems from a notice issued May 22 by landlord Alexandros Tsitos alleging the restaurant had failed to pay rent for March, April and May 2026, totaling $10,800. The notice warned that the lease would be terminated if the alleged amount owed was not paid within 10 days.
Along with denying the allegations, the restaurant has asked the court to dismiss the complaint or, alternatively, grant summary judgment in its favor. It is also seeking attorney’s fees, arguing the landlord continued pursuing the eviction despite allegedly knowing the rent had been paid.
“The rent allegedly owed was paid in full,” the motion states. “Plaintiff accepted, negotiated, and retained Defendant’s rent payments.” The filing argues that because the landlord accepted and deposited those payments, it cannot evict the restaurant for nonpayment.
In the motion, attorney Jennifer Capone argues Tsitos cannot prove the central allegation underlying the eviction case because he accepted the rent payments before serving the formal eviction notice.
“By receiving and accepting the rent payments prior to the Notice to Quit and commencing this action, Plaintiff cannot establish the factual predicate necessary to establish a valid basis to maintain an eviction based upon nonpayment of rent,” the filing states.
According to the motion, the restaurant has assembled copies of 19 negotiated rent checks dating back to January 2025. It alleges that the landlord accepted and deposited each payment and that the checks were honored by the restaurant’s financial institution.
The filing also alleges the parties experienced confusion over two rent payments in 2025 after the landlord reportedly informed the restaurant that one check was “missing” and another had been torn and could not be cashed. The restaurant contends replacement checks were issued, but the original checks were later negotiated as well, resulting in duplicate payments that were eventually credited toward later months’ rent.
In its motion, Lincoln’s Landing argues the lawsuit is not the result of disputed accounting records or a misunderstanding but instead was filed despite evidence that the rent had been paid. The restaurant is asking the court to dismiss the eviction complaint with prejudice or enter judgment in its favor, while also awarding attorney’s fees and litigation costs.
A case management conference is scheduled for July 23 in Lynn District Court.
