Water Damage, Slow Repairs and a Changing Landlord: A Tenant’s Experience at 1400 Montlimar Drive

A commercial lease at an office building on Montlimar Drive in west Mobile, signed with high hopes in late 2016, ended in early 2019 amid a burst-pipe flood, months of unresolved maintenance requests, a change in ownership and a final dispute over a returned rent check. Records reviewed for this report, together with the account of the tenant’s management, offer a detailed picture of how a routine lease became a prolonged disagreement, and of the wider neighborhood setting in which it unfolded.

A Building With a Complicated Ownership History

The property at 1400 Montlimar Drive was long associated with the late Richard C. Luce. According to the tenant, after Luce’s death his children disagreed over the building, and it ultimately passed to Luce’s daughter, Catherine Luce Druhan. The tenant says her husband, Michael Druhan, managed it. Public court or probate records confirming the details of that family disagreement were not located for this report.

Correspondence from the period is consistent with that general arrangement. In December 2017, the tenant’s attorney was given the landlord’s contact as the “Estate of Richard C. Luce, c/o Michael Druhan.” By January 2018, however, the tenant’s accountants were being told that the “new owner” was John D. Cocke IV, of KAIROS Asset Advisory, LLC in Mobile, and that Druhan was the “old owner.” The tenant describes Cocke and Druhan as business partners, with Druhan having sold the building to Cocke.

The Lease

The tenant negotiated its lease for Suite A through a commercial real estate brokerage in December 2016. Emails from that month show the tenant was pleased with the space, describing it as a good fit, while also flagging unusual terms. The tenant’s director at the time questioned a provision that appeared to make the tenant responsible for maintaining the roof and parking lot. Rent payments were scheduled to begin in April 2017.

Early Maintenance Requests

On August 30, 2017, the tenant emailed Michael Druhan a list of items needing attention: three light fixtures that were out, two roof leaks, a water fountain that had never worked, and a burned-out light on a small sign. Days later, on September 5, a follow-up with photographs showed that several lights at the back of the building had failed, though they had been replaced earlier in the year. The message said it raised the question of whether the lights had been shot out or knocked out in preparation for a burglary.

The Flood

On October 3, 2017, water damage struck the suite. The tenant recalls that a pipe burst and that water spread through the entire building, halting its operations. The tenant called Servpro, a water-damage restoration firm, to begin mitigation work.

According to the tenant, Michael Druhan came to the building while Servpro was on site and spoke with the company’s representative. The tenant says Druhan asked questions and made remarks suggesting that the tenant had caused the damage. The tenant says the Servpro representative responded that such failures are common, that pipes do burst, and that the flexible supply hose connecting a toilet to its water line is a frequent point of failure. The tenant also says it was its understanding that no preventative maintenance had been performed on the building’s plumbing. The cause of the failure has not been established by any record reviewed for this report.

A Slow Recovery

By October 13, 2017, ten days after the flood, the tenant’s director wrote to Druhan that the tenant had received no update on repair and remediation. He noted that removed baseboards had not been repaired or replaced, that painting and cleaning of the offices, restrooms and carpets were still needed, and that a new leak had been discovered that day in a back office, with water running down the upper ceiling tile and a wall.

When the tenant’s attorney later asked how much the landlord had done in response, the tenant replied on December 13, 2017 that the landlord had replaced the baseboards and nothing more. That month, the tenant, through counsel, prepared a letter to the landlord about unresolved maintenance concerns. The items listed for the letter were a carpet odor requiring steam cleaning, paint damage in the bathroom and on walls from the water, and multiple electrical fixtures that were completely out.

A New Owner, and Continued Requests

Early 2018 brought a change in the landlord relationship. While the tenant’s accountants were trying to collect tax forms from landlords, the tenant told them that it had emailed Druhan but had received little response during the year other than rent checks being deposited. The tenant’s director wrote to the accountants on January 30 that the landlords “simply do not respond to much, unless the building is flooding or on fire.” The accountant described this as a familiar problem.

Cocke did respond on January 31, 2018, apologizing for the delay. He said he had been out of the office and that his firm had moved its banking relationship, which was taking longer than expected. On February 1, he said he would contact an electrician about the outside lighting, which the tenant said had been out for several weeks. On February 19, the tenant followed up and also reported a plumbing problem with a men’s restroom toilet. The records reviewed do not show how or when those requests were resolved.

The End of the Tenancy

In February 2019, Cocke emailed that a rent check had been returned and asked for a replacement. The tenant answered on February 22 that the lease had expired in December, that “with some of the issues we had” it had decided to move out and deliver up the premises, that the automated payment had been issued in error, and that the security deposit paid in 2016 should cover the final month. Cocke replied that the move was the tenant’s prerogative but “not good form,” and asked that the keys be put through the mail slot at his Dauphin Street office by the following Monday. The records reviewed do not show whether the deposit question was formally resolved.

A Campaign Sign and a Confrontation

The tenant says a further dispute arose over political signage. According to its account, one of the tenant’s businesses operating from the building supported a political candidate and displayed that candidate’s sign near the business’s front door. The tenant adds that the business was also under contract with the candidate’s campaign to perform work for it.

The tenant says Catherine Luce Druhan came to the business visibly angry and demanded that the sign be removed. The tenant maintains that the demand was unwarranted because the lease between the landlord and the tenant permitted signs to be placed on the property. The signature page of the lease was the only portion of that document located in the records reviewed for this report, so the sign provision could not be independently confirmed.

Parking and Trespassing Concerns

The tenant also describes ongoing friction with neighboring businesses. A mechanic and body shop operates next door, and the tenant says tow trucks and tool trucks routinely parked on the property and unloaded vehicles even though the lot was clearly posted against trespass. It says the owners of the neighboring business parked there daily as well and showed no concern about the restriction.

The Wider Neighborhood

The tenant says that violence in the vicinity of Pleasant Valley Road and Montlimar Drive added to its concerns about security. Public news coverage confirms a pattern of serious incidents along Pleasant Valley Road, though the reports reviewed do not place any of them on the grounds of 1400 Montlimar Drive.

• October 27, 2021: Jerome Ryals, 23, was shot and killed in the parking lot of a Family Dollar store on Pleasant Valley Road. Mobile police arrested Chrosin Mauldin IV and charged him with murder.
• August 2017: Larry Willingham, 70, was found fatally shot in what Mobile police described as an apparent home invasion in the 3000 block of Pleasant Valley Road.
• April 2019: A woman was seriously wounded in a shooting at Angus Drive and Janwood Drive near Pleasant Valley Road.
• February 6, 2025: A man driving on Halls Mill Road was struck by gunfire and the incident was reported in the 3100 block of Pleasant Valley Road. His injuries were not life-threatening.
• January 16, 2026: A man was wounded in a shooting at the Court Yard Apartments, 3210 Pleasant Valley Road, in what police said was an incident between people who knew each other.

The tenant also recalls a case in which a person was shot inside a vehicle, and the vehicle then crashed onto the property. No news report matching that account was located for this report, and it is therefore not described as established.

What Remains Unresolved

The records reviewed document the flood date, the tenant’s repeated written requests, the landlord’s limited response, the change in ownership and the circumstances of the move-out. They do not establish what caused the pipe failure, whether any party bore legal responsibility for the damage, how the final rent and deposit question was settled, or what became of the building’s dispute among the Luce heirs. Cocke, Michael Druhan and Catherine Luce Druhan have not been heard from in the material available, and any statement from them would be welcome.