This VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CIVIL DIVISION
BUILDING AND PROPERTY LIST	
vcat reference No. BP2051/2021	
CATCHWORDS	
RETAIL TENANCY DISPUTE – rent in arrears distinguished from rent forgone; whether the landlord is entitled to reimbursement of outgoings paid after termination of the lease up to the date that the premises are relet - contractual interest distinguished from interest in the form of damages – whether it is fair to order interest in the form of damages – whether significant building work following termination of the lease disentitles the landlord to claim for the cost of removing the tenant’s goods and making good. 	

APPLICANT	Menmere Pty Ltd (ACN 005 949 520)	
RESPONDENT	Miao Lan Jiang	
WHERE HELD	Melbourne/Videoconference – remote	
BEFORE	Deputy President E Riegler 	
HEARING TYPE	Hearing	
DATE OF HEARING	24 May 2023	
LAST DATE FOR FILING WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS	30 June 2023	
DATE OF ORDER	10 August 2023	
CITATION	Menmere Pty Ltd v Jiang (Building and Property) [2023] VCAT 941	

THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT:
1.	The respondent must pay the applicant $356,102.90.
2.	Costs reserved, subject to any application for costs being made within 21 days of the date of these orders.

E Riegler 
Deputy President			

APPEARANCES:		
For the Applicant:	Mr S Curtain, solicitor	
For the Respondent:	In person	

Reasons
introduction
1.	The applicant (‘the Landlord’) was at all material times the registered owner of a small retail arcade located at 132 to 138 Upper Heidelberg Road, Heidelberg (‘the Premises’). Under a lease dated 31 July 2019 and commencing on 1 August 2019 (‘the Lease’), the respondent (‘the Tenant’) leased Shops 2, 4 and 6 within that retail arcade (‘the Premises’). The Tenant operated a restaurant business from the Premises. 
2.	As was common within the catering industry, many businesses suffered serious financial downturn with the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in early 2020. The Tenant was no exception.  Consequently, no rent or outgoings were paid under the Lease from 1 February 2020.
3.	Although the parties negotiated to provide rent relief to the Tenant, no agreement was ultimately reached, nor is there any evidence that a compliant request for rent relief was made under the COVID-19 Omnibus (Emergency Measures) (Commercial Leases and Licences) Regulations 2020 and subsequent manifestations of those regulations.
4.	Ultimately, the Lease was terminated on 19 May 2021, on which date the Landlord re-entered the Premises.
5.	According to the Landlord, at the time of re-entry, much of the Tenant’s plant and equipment and other personal belongings (‘the Tenant’s Goods’) remained in the Premises. The Landlord claims that the cost of removing the Tenant’s Goods and making good the Premises was $40,810. It claims that amount from the Tenant. 
6.	In addition to that amount, the Landlord also claims rent and outgoings in arrears up to the date of termination, rent forgone and reimbursement of outgoings paid after termination. The total amount claimed by the Landlord is $375,315.55. 
7.	The amount claimed by the Landlord is particularised in a document titled Rental Statement shops 2, 4, 6 132-138 Upper Heidelberg Road Ivanhoe (‘the Rental Statement’). This document was updated shortly before the hearing on 24 May 2023 to take into account all losses up to the end of January 2023, after which time the Landlord was receiving rent and the payment of outgoings under a tenancy agreement with a new tenant.
8.	Given the lateness in filing and serving the updated particulars, and in order to ensure that the Tenant was given an opportunity to fully consider those updated particulars and the submissions and evidence of the Landlord, I gave the parties leave to file closing submissions by 30 June 2023. Both parties filed written closing submissions. I have had regard to those closing submissions in addition to the evidence and submissions given orally during the hearing on 24 May 2023.
The Landlord’s claim
9.	As indicated above, the Landlord’s claim is particularised in the Rental Statement, which comprises pages 64 to 66 of the bundle of documents tendered in evidence. The Rental Statement spans the period 1 August 2019 to 31 January 2023 and itemises all rent, outgoings and interest claimed over that period. It also accounts for any payments made, including calling up the security deposit, which was in the form of a bank guarantee to the value of $46,750. 
10.	The Landlord was legally represented by Mr Curtain, solicitor, who led evidence from Simon Perham, leasing agent and from Luigi Guzzardi, the director of the Landlord. Both Mr Perham and Guzzardi gave evidence confirming that the entries in the Rental Statement were accurate. Further reference was made to various invoices generated by Mr Perham agent over that same period, which were also tendered in evidence.
11.	The Rental Statement summarises the Landlord’s claim as follows:
Summary of Arrears	
Rent	$311,666.40	
Outgoings	$47,292.50	
Interest	$57,192.91	
Make Good Costs	$40,810.00	
Payments made by Tenant	($81,646.26)	
Closing balance	$375,315.55	
The Tenant’s defence
12.	The Tenant’s defence is set out in a document dated 23 March 2023 and in her final written submissions filed on 3 July 2023. Neither of those documents challenge the calculation of rent in arrears or rent forgone. Rather, the Tenant raised queries over some of the items relating to outgoings and her liability to compensate the Landlord for removal of the Tenant’s Goods and make good costs. The Tenant also denied that she was liable to pay interest, although the precise basis for that denial was not explored.
findings
Rent claim
13.	The Landlord’s claim, insofar as it relates to rent (‘the Rent Claim’), comprises two elements:
(a)	rent in arrears; and
(b)	rent forgone.
14.	The first element of the Rent Claim relates to the period up to termination of the Lease and represents arrears of rent that was due under the Lease up until that date (19 May 2021). The second element of the Rent Claim is in the nature of damages, representing the loss suffered by the Landlord by reason of it no longer receiving rent as a consequence of the early termination of the Lease. In other words, rent foregone.
15.	The claim for rent foregone relates to the period after termination of the Lease until the Landlord was in receipt of rent from the new tenant, which commenced on 1 February 2023. 
16.	The Tenant does not contend that the termination of the Lease was unlawful. Indeed, the evidence and the documents produced during the hearing clearly indicate that the Landlord was entitled to terminate the Lease on 19 May 2021 – and I so find. 
17.	Specifically, it is beyond question that the allegations of breach set out in the Notice of Default dated 26 March 2021 existed at the time the Notice of Default was served. Those allegations of breach related to the non-payment of rent from 1 February 2020 to 1 March 2021. The Notice of Default required the Tenant to remedy the breaches of the Lease by payment of $109,083.24. Apart from the Landlord drawing upon the bank guarantee in the amount of $46,749.96, nothing else was paid prior to the Landlord terminating the Lease on 19 May 2021. 
18.	Rather than challenging the validity of the Landlord’s termination of the Lease, much of the Tenant’s evidence and written submissions focused on her negotiations with the leasing agent concerning rent relief. However, there is no evidence; nor is it contended, that the Tenant ever made a compliant request for rent relief. This is notwithstanding that over the period of negotiation, the Tenant submitted a number of documents, including evidence that she was a participant in the Jobkeeper Scheme, and other financial documents, consistent with her contention that her business had suffered a serious downturn in revenue. However, despite the considerable effort by both parties to try to reach some agreement in relation to rent relief, there is no evidence that a request for rent relief which complied with reg 10 of COVID Regulations was ever made. 
19.	Moreover, the Tenant does not say that the calculation of rent in arrears or rent foregone is incorrect. Similarly, the Tenant does not contend that the negotiations between her and the Landlord concerning rent relief resulted in the Landlord either waiving its right to rely on strict compliance with the provisions of the COVID Regulations or is otherwise estopped from doing so. Put simply, there is no allegation raised by the Tenant that the Rent Claim should be calculated by something other than by reference to the amount of rent specified under the Lease, notwithstanding the Tenant’s contention that she suffered a 70% downturn in revenue.
20.	The measure of damages recoverable by a landlord for breach of a lease is prima facie the difference between what the landlord received and what the landlord would have received, had the lease continued and the tenant complied with its obligations thereunder. This principle of law is well-established and has been approved by the High Court of Australia on numerous occasions. 
21.	Had the Lease continued to the end of its first term on 31 July 2023, the Landlord would have been entitled to rent pursuant to the terms of the Lease. In this case, the Landlord contends that despite having immediately marketed the Premises for lease following termination, it was unable to secure a new tenant until 2022 and receive rent receipts until February 2023. 
22.	The evidence of Mr Perham and Mr Guzzardi, which I accept, demonstrates that reasonable efforts were made by the Landlord to try to secure either a tenant for the Premises or alternatively, a tenant for the whole of the ground floor of the retail arcade, incorporating the Premises and the two single tenancies on each side of the Premises – if that was more marketable. Mr Perham recounted that in or around the middle of 2022 and after some negotiation, a new tenant was secured who had agreed to lease the whole of the ground floor of the retail arcade. Mr Guzzardi said that reconfiguring the retail arcade to suit the requirements of the new tenant required planning and building approval and some building work, with the result that the new tenancy was not able to be occupied until the end of 2022. Further, he said that the new tenant was also given a rent-free period of two months as an incentive. Therefore, the Landlord did not receive rent under the new tenancy until 1 February 2023. 
23.	As indicated above, I accept that reasonable efforts were made by the Landlord to secure a new tenancy following termination of the Lease and that it took until the middle of 2022 before this occurred, with rental receipts and the payment of outgoings commencing on 1 February 2023. Therefore, I find that the Landlord took all reasonable steps to mitigate its loss consequent on the Tenant’s breach of the Lease and that the damages suffered resulted as a direct consequence of that breach. Consequently, I find that the Rent Claim is proven.
Outgoings
24.	The only components of the Rental Statement challenged relate to the water rates, electricity (insofar as it relates to corridor lighting), insurance premiums and the payment of interest. In relation to the components of the Rental Statement which relate to water rates, electricity and insurance premiums, the Tenant submitted that she was being charged for the cost attributed to the whole of the retail arcade, rather than specifically to the Premises. She contended that this was impermissible under the Lease.
25.	However, both the Rental Statement and the numerous invoices prepared by the leasing agent indicate that that municipal rates and water rates, electricity and insurance were all levied pro rata. For example, the invoice dated 28 October 2019 states:
Date Due	INV #	Description	Amount	GST Incl	
04/11/19	185998	Municipal Rates 1st Prorata 1/8/19-30/0/10 REIM	1,487.82	135.26	
26.	Similarly, business insurance is also recorded in various invoices as being a pro-rata payment. It appears that the only item of outgoing which may relate to the whole of the retail arcade is an outgoing described as AGL arcade lighting, which seems to be charged quarterly at around $300-$700 on each occasion. 
27.	It is not clear whether the reference to pro rata means a share of the overall costs of the retail arcade or simply, a percentage of the annual cost, However, both the Lease and the disclosure statement produced in evidence indicate that the amounts charged are consistent with those documents.
28.	For example, the Lease and the disclosure statement identify the payment of arcade lighting as an outgoing payable by the Tenant, notwithstanding that lighting may benefit other tenants within the retail arcade. Moreover, the amount of arcade lighting charged to the Tenant over each calendar year is approximately consistent with the amount estimated in the disclosure statement, which states that the Tenant is responsible for arcade lighting and gives an estimated annual amount of $1,946.21. 
29.	Similarly, municipal rate instalments are approximately $2,240 per quarter (excluding special levies). This amount is consistent with the annual amount estimated in the disclosure statement of $9,179. Further, insurance for the calendar year 2020 is expressed as a share. The amount charged is $4,694.91 over that period. Again, that is the same amount stated in the disclosure statement.
30.	The submission made by the Tenant that some of the outgoings may not be specifically referable to the Premises is not corroborated by any extrinsic material or other evidence. In contrast, the amounts charged are reflected in tax invoices generated by the leasing agent, albeit that the source invoices have not been produced. Importantly, however, the amounts charged in respect of outgoings are largely consistent with the estimates given in the disclosure statement. Therefore, I find that, on balance, it is more likely than not that the amounts charged reflect the actual outgoings applicable to the Premises, and do not mistakenly include outgoings which relate to the retail arcade in general. 
31.	As is the case with the Rent Claim, had the Lease continued until the end of its first term, the Landlord would have been entitled to be reimbursed in respect of outgoings payable under the Lease. As a consequence of the Tenant breaching the terms of the Lease and the subsequent termination thereof, the Landlord was unable to be reimbursed for outgoings that it ultimately paid but which should have been paid under the Lease. I find that these expenses are recoverable by way of damages, consequent upon the Tenant breaching the terms of the Lease.
Interest
32.	The Rental statement also itemises interest charged against both the rent and outgoings in arrears and rent forgone, together with outgoings that would have been paid had the Lease continued. 
33.	Interest has been calculated daily at 12 percent per annum and compounding monthly from 31 October 2019 and to 31 January 2023. The total amount claimed is $57,192.91.
34.	The Landlord submitted that interest was payable under the Lease under clause 2.1.7 and Item 14 to the Schedule at 2% per annum more than the rate from time to time fixed by the Penalty Interest Rates Act 1983 (Vic), which is said to have been 10 percent over the relevant period. Clause 2.1.7 of the Lease states, in part:
… Interest is to be calculated daily from the due date, continues until the overdue monies paid and is capitalised monthly.
35.	As indicated above, the Lease provides that interest is payable on all monies payable under the Lease at a rate of 2% above the rate fixed by the Penalty Interest Rates Act 1983 (Vic), which I accept to be 12% over the relevant period. At the time when the Lease was brought to an end in May 2021, the aggregate amount of interest detailed in the Rental Statement was $12,122.18. It is not contended that this amount has been incorrectly calculated and I accept that this amount reflects the amount of interest payable on arrears of rent and outgoings until the end of May 2021. 
36.	However, I do not accept that the same formula continues after termination of the Lease. The amounts claimed post termination of the Lease and after May 2021 represent damages, both in terms of rent forgone and outgoings which were paid by the Landlord in circumstances where they should have been paid by the Tenant, had the Lease continued.  In my view, the terms of the Lease only entitled the Landlord to claim interest on a debt certain. They do not entitle the Landlord to claim compounding interest on its damages claim. 
37.	Ultimately, it is a matter for the Tribunal to exercise its discretion as to whether interest by way of damages should be awarded to the Landlord in respect of the Landlord’s damages claim. For the reasons that follow, I decline to exercise that discretion.
38.	The amount of interest claimed on the debt certain is a significant sum and materially higher than the prevailing cash rate. In that respect, I am of the view that the Landlord has been satisfactorily compensated by the payment of interest on the debt certain, especially when one considers that the interest has compounded monthly.
39.	Further, I accept that the terms of the Lease allow interest to continue to be compounded monthly on the debt certain until paid. As at the date of termination, $117,387.57 was owed. Under the terms of the Lease, interest at a rate of 12% continues to be calculated daily and compounded monthly on that sum until 31 January 2023, being the end date according to the Landlord’s claim (as amended). I calculate the compounding interest on that amount to be $25,949.68. 
40.	When that amount is added to the interest which had accrued to the end of May 2021, the total amount of interest payable under the terms of the Lease is $38,071.86. That is the amount of contractual interest calculated in accordance with the terms of the Lease up until the end of January 2023.
41.	In my view, the amount of contractual interest reasonably compensates the Landlord for monies out-of-pocket and it would not be fair to further order the payment of interest by way of damages. Therefore, I reduce the Landlord’s claim for interest to $38,071.86.
Cost of removing the Tenant’s Goods and making good ($40,810)
42.	At the hearing of this proceeding, Mr Curtain submitted that the cost of removing the Tenant’s Goods and making good the premises was $40,810. Reliance was placed on clauses 3.22, 3.23, 3.24, 3.212, 3.213, 5.11, 5.12, 5.13, and 5.14 of the Lease. 
43.	In the Landlord’s closing submissions dated 30 June 2023, the Landlord claims a further $4,081, which it contends represents GST on the cost of removing the Tenant’s Goods and making good. This was not claimed in the amended particulars of claim; nor was it raised during the hearing on 24 May 2023. Moreover, there has been no order giving the Landlord leave to further amend its claim. Consequently, I do not consider that it is fair to take that amount into consideration at this late stage of the proceeding.
44.	The evidence and submissions of the Tenant focused heavily on this aspect of the Landlord’s claim. In that respect, the Tenant raised two ‘defences’. 
45.	First, the Tenant submitted that she was not given sufficient opportunity to remove the Tenant’s Goods from the Premises following termination of the Lease. 
46.	Second, the Tenant submitted that the Landlord subsequently undertook significant work to the Premises which went much further than removing the Tenant’s Goods and making good. Specifically, the Tenant submitted that the Landlord has consolidated all of the individual shops (including the Premises) on the ground floor of the retail arcade into one leasehold, which it leased to a single tenant. Therefore, whatever work was required to reinstate the Premises has been subsumed into that broader building work. 
47.	Apart from the ‘defences’ raised above, the Tenant otherwise concedes that the terms of the Lease required her to remove the Tenant’s Goods and make good the Premises thereafter.
Was the Tenant given an opportunity to remove the Tenant’s Goods and make good?
48.	The Tenant gave evidence that she was not given sufficient opportunity to remove the Tenant’s Goods and make good the Premises following termination of the Lease. I do not accept that to be the case. 
49.	I accept the evidence of Mr Perham that there were many opportunities given to the Tenant to remove the Tenant’s Goods and make good the Premises. Specifically, he said that access was provided to the Tenant on seven occasions between 21 May 2021 and 22 October 2021. He also referred to correspondence dated 29 October 2021, which was signed by the Tenant, and which stated: 
Dear Maggie & Braun
Further to our discussion with Braun on site, we confirm our office shall be comfortable in opening the premises on any of the following days for you to remove all remaining goods at the premises:
-	Saturday the 30th of October
- 	Sunday the 31st of October
- 	Monday the 1st of November
-	Tuesday the 2nd of November
-	Wednesday the 3rd of November
Our office can open the premises at 9 AM and lock up at 5 PM on any or all of the days noted above.
Please confirm which days you require the premises to be opened in order for all remaining goods/installations to be removed as required under your lease.
We note that by 5pm Wednesday the 3rd of November, all goods must be moved. We further confirm that any goods remaining at the premises after this time shall be treated as abandoned. 
Please confirm receipt and acceptance of this advice by signing below.
50.	Mr Perham said that follow-up emails were sent on 3 and 9 November 2021 but that nothing was ultimately scheduled. Mr Perham indicated that most of the attendances prior to 29 October 2021 were to facilitate selling some of the Tenant’s Goods, rather than removing the Tenant’s Goods or making good. He said that on many occasions where access was provided, a third-party attended the Premises solely for the purpose of purchasing some of the Tenant’s Goods. 
51.	A number of photographs were produced in evidence as evidence of the state of the Premises following termination of the Lease. According to Mr Perham the photographs were taken as part of an email dated 4 November 2021 and reflected the condition of the Premises as left by the Tenant. 
52.	The Tenant disputes this. She said that the paragraphs reflected the condition of the Premises at the time of termination, and that further work was done subsequently to remove a substantial number of the Tenant’s Goods and to make good. 
53.	I prefer the evidence of Mr Perham on this issue. He struck me as a credible witness willing to make concessions during cross-examination, when pressed. Consequently, I find that it is more likely than not that the condition of the Premises in November 2021 was similar to the photographs appearing at pages 75 to 89 of the bundle of documents tendered in evidence. 
54.	Those photographs show that many of the Tenant’s Goods were still within the Premises, although it appears that some attempt had been made to remove some of the Tenant’s Goods. For example, the photographs show that some of the joinery had been dismantled and left either loose or had been removed. Similarly, it appears that some of the plant and equipment may have also been removed, albeit that much of the plant and equipment was still within the Premises. Nevertheless, the photographs appear to suggest that some work had been done to remove the Tenant’s Goods which is consistent with the photographs having been taken some time after termination, rather than at the date of termination. 
55.	Moreover, the bundle of documents tendered in evidence also included a quotation from NGK Property Services Pty Ltd to remove the Tenant’s Goods and make good for $42,750 plus GST. It is dated 9 February 2022. The scope of the work set out in that quotation is largely consistent with the condition of the Premises as reflected in the photographs. 
56.	Consequently, I find that on the balance of probabilities, the Tenant did not fully avail herself of the numerous opportunities given to her to remove the Tenant’s Goods and make good. Further, I find that in the circumstances, the Landlord had little option but to remove the Tenant’s Goods and make good at its own cost.
Was the cost of removing the Tenant’s Goods and reinstating the Premises subsumed in the building work relating to the consolidation of all ground floor tenancies into one single tenancy?
57.	Mr Curtain conceded that the Premises are no longer in the form that existed during the life of the Lease. He referred to the evidence of Mr Perham and Mr Guzzadi who both recounted how attempts were made to re-lease the Premises following termination of the Lease.
58.	Mr Guzzardi said that immediately after the Lease was terminated, he instructed Mr Perham to market the Premises for lease in its then form. In other words, Shop 2, 3 and 4 of the retail arcade as one tenancy, with two other individual retail tenancies on each side (which by that stage were also vacant). He also instructed Mr Perham to offer the whole of the ground floor for lease as one larger tenancy, if that was more marketable. 
59.	Ultimately, Mr Perham met with representatives of a retail franchise who were only interested in leasing the whole of the ground floor as one tenancy. An agreement to lease was entered into, following which substantial building work was undertaken by the Landlord to consolidate all of the individual shops into one large tenancy. Mr Gazzardi said that required planning and building approval and that the whole process took until the end of 2022 before the new tenant was able to take possession. He said that as part of the negotiations with the new tenant, the Landlord offered a two-month rent-free period. Therefore, the first rent payable by the new tenant was in February 2023. 
60.	In my view, the fact that the Landlord undertook other work which may or may not have subsumed the cost of removing the Tenant’s Goods and making good the Premises does not mean that the Landlord is not entitled to compensation for having to do that work itself. 
61.	As indicated above, the Landlord claims $40,810 for the work of removing the remaining Tenant’s Goods and making good the Premises. The scope of work set out in the in GK Property Services Pty Ltd quotation and the invoice which followed set out the scope of work to remove the Tenant’s Goods, including joinery. Neither the quotation, nor the invoice refer to the work of consolidating the three single tenancies into one. Moreover, Mr Guzzardi gave evidence that the expenditure of $40,810 was separate to other costs associated with converting the single tenancies into one larger tenancy. He said that the amount of $40,810 related specifically and uniquely to the cost of removing the Goods and making good the Premises following removal. 
62.	Consequently, I do not accept that the work undertaken by the Landlord in consolidating the three tenancies into one subsumed the work of removing the Tenant’s Goods and making good. I find that that cost was incurred by the Landlord, irrespective of the work which followed.
Is the tenant responsible to compensate the Landlord for removing the Tenant’s Goods and making good?
63.	The Lease identifies that all of the Tenant’s Goods are the tenant’s installations, within the meaning of that phrase as defined in the Lease. In other words, apart from the landlord’s installations (within the meaning of that term as defined in the Lease), everything else within the Premises belongs to the Tenant. The landlord’s installations are identified as: 
The structural walls, shop front and the water supply and water meter.
64.	Clause 5.1 of the Lease states: 
5.1	When the term ends, the tenant must –
5.1.1	return the premises to the landlord clean and in the condition required by this lease, and
5.1.2	remove the tenant’s installations and other tenant’s property from the premises and make good any damage caused in installing or removing them.
65.	The fact that the Lease came to an end prematurely does not obviate the need to comply with clause 5.1 of the Lease (as if the lease had ended naturally). Similarly, the fact that the Landlord has chosen to modify, renovate or even demolish the Premises does not change the fact that under the terms of the Lease, the Tenant was responsible to remove the Goods and make good any damage caused. 
66.	In those circumstances, I find that the Tenant was responsible to remove the Tenant’s Goods and make good the Premises. I further find that in breach of the Lease, the Tenant failed to complete that exercise. 
67.	The only evidence going to quantum is that of the Landlord, which is corroborated by documents consistent with the evidence of Mr Guzzardo. Consequently, I find that the cost of $40,810 represents a fair and reasonable price to remove the Tenant’s Goods and make good. I find that the Tenant is liable to pay the Landlord $40,810 in respect of this head of damage.
Conclusion
68.	Having regard to the Rental Statement, I find that the Tenant has made payments to the Landlord amounted to $81,646.26. This includes drawing upon the security deposit bank guarantee of $46,750.
69.	Consequently, I find that that the Tenant is liable to the Landlord in the amount of $356,102.90, made up as follows:
Rent in arrears and rent foregone to 31 January 2023	$311,666.40	
Outgoings in arrears and reimbursement of outgoings paid to 31 January 2023	$47,292.50	
Interest on arrears	$38,071.86	
Cost of removing the Tenant’s Goods and making good	$40,810	
Less payments made (including retention of the security deposit)	($81,464.26)	
TOTAL	$356,102.90	

E Riegler
Deputy President 			
ANNEXURE A

Month	Interest	Compounding	Balance	
June 2021	$1,121.73	$1,121.73	$118,509.30	
July 2021	$1,210.95	$2,332.68	$119,720.25	
August 2021	$1,223.32	$3,556.01	$120,943.58	
September 2021	$1,195.76	$4,751.77	$122,139.34	
October 2021	$1,248.04	$5,999.81	$123,387.38	
November 2021	$1,219.92	$7,219.74	$124,607.31	
December 2021	$1,273.26	$8,493.00	$125,880.57	
January 2022	$1,286.27	$9,779.27	$127,166.84	
February 2022	$1,173.09	$10,952.35	$128,339.92	
March 2022	$1,311.40	$12,263.75	$129,651.32	
April 2022	$1,281.86	$13,545.61	$130,933.18	
May 2022	$1,337.90	$14,883.51	$132,271.08	
June 2022	$1,307.76	$16,191.27	$133,578.84	
July 2022	$1,364.93	$17,556.20	$134,943.77	
August 2022	$1,378.88	$18,935.08	$136,322.65	
September 2022	$1,347.81	$20,282.89	$137,670.46	
October 2022	$1,406.74	$21,689.64	$139,077.21	
November 2022	$1,375.05	$23,064.68	$140,452.25	
December 2022	$1,435.17	$24,499.85	$141,887.42	
January 2023	$1,449.83	$25,949.68	$143,337.25	
TOTAL		$25,949.68