Plugging Loopholes

RSS

Before signing a lease with a partnership or corporation, get proof that the business is a valid legal entity and that it’s taken the necessary partnership or corporate action to allow it to enter the lease. Otherwise, you may have a hard time enforcing the lease. The risk: If the partnership or corporation was never legally formed and/or legally bound to the lease, the tenant will be able to walk away from the lease with impunity.

It happens to countless landlords, and sooner or later, it’s bound to happen to you. A tenant moves out at the end of the lease. You take possession of the property and discover that it’s in a totally unrentable condition.

The good news is that your lease probably requires the tenant to pay the costs of necessary repairs. The bad news is that this may not be enough to protect you.

The last thing any landlord wants is to allow a tenant to purchase the property while it’s in default. Unfortunately, that’s exactly what you might have to do if the purchase option clause in your lease contains a common loophole.  

One reason general liability insurance is so expensive is that landlords can be sued for money damages if an individual gets injured on their property. While there are lots of legal theories trial lawyers can rely on, the vast majority of personal injury cases against landlords involve one or more claims of negligence.

Guaranty agreements may cap how much the guarantor has to pay if the tenant defaults. For example, the agreement may say that $100,000 is the most the landlord can collect from the guarantor. If you include dollar caps in your own lease guaranties, just be sure that they exclude attorney’s fees, cautions a New York City leasing attorney.  

Granting rent concessions and abatements (which we’ll refer to collectively as “abatements”) has become standard operating procedure in these troubled times. But before you engage in the practice, check your lease for a loophole that can limit how much of a rent increase you can command later.

The Question: Does your lease provide for future rent increases based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI)? If so, you could end up getting burned.

Here’s the loophole and how to plug it.

Litigation is a big hassle, and when you resort to it you want to be sure you collect as much as possible from tenants who have left the space and are no longer paying rent. But your lease may have a loophole that defaulting tenants can rely on to get a court to reduce or even eliminate their debt.

The nice thing about lease assignments is that you can always go after the original tenant if the assignee violates its lease obligations. At least that’s the common assumption. But if you modify the lease after the assignment, you could end up inadvertently losing your right to hold the original tenant responsible for the assignee’s lease violations. Here’s what you can do to plug this loophole.

Disputes are apt to arise when temporarily covering or removing a tenant’s storefront sign becomes necessary for the landlord to carry out building work. Tenants have an obvious interest in keeping their signage clear, visible, and unobstructed by scaffolding and such, especially during business hours. But landlords have an equally legitimate need to do what must be done to make necessary repairs, renovations, and improvements. The good news is that you can reconcile these interests fairly and head off disputes by specifically addressing temporary signage removal in your lease.

One thing to look out for when leasing to bars, restaurants, nightclubs, and other entertainment establishments is unanticipated—and unwanted—use changes after the business opens. Such changes may include the introduction of topless dancing. Needless to say, this is the kind of thing that can raise a firestorm of objections from not only other tenants, but also local residents and government authorities. So, you want to make sure your lease protects you in case an entertainment tenant tries to go to a topless format.