We could have made today’s posting our shortest ever by posting only its title. But, that wouldn’t be Ruminations.
Traditionally, though bargaining power has been very site/situation-specific, larger enterprises always had a head start. And, though that meant large, mostly national, tenants with “brand” names, more often it meant the “landlord.” Owners of multi-tenant projects usually had the upper hand over most tenants and prospective tenants – the small ones who populate and support our shopping centers. While large tenants could easily negotiate for exclusive use rights, even if their market power made those rights mere surplusage, small tenants desiring protection for their core businesses found themselves whistling in the wind. Large tenants got to use their own, tenant-focused leases forms, while small tenants were offered a Hobson’s choice – take it or leave it. [Read more…]
Print
We’ve traveled this road before, though not very recently. What can a tenant remove from its leased space when it leaves the space? There is some “common law,” modifiable by the terms of a lease. Most leases cover the subject. All should.
Imagine a landlord delivers promised space 84 days beyond the target delivery date, and the tenant gets 755 days of rent credit. That’s a little over two years’ of free rent for a delay of a little less than three months. Is that appropriate? Is it lawful? Is it a proper measure of damages? Is it a penalty imposed on the landlord? At the end of March, a federal judge in Pennsylvania, applying New Mexico law, answered the legal questions. She ruled that the 755-day rent credit was an acceptable approximation of damages and was not an unenforceable penalty. Ruminations has no argument with the court because, when it comes to whether an agreed-upon damages provision in a lease is enforceable, the unvarying answer is: “It depends.” 
Today Ruminations’ blog posting, our 480th, will be different from all that have come before. We’re making it our readers’ blog posting.
A few weeks ago, we wrote about the distinction between “rights” and “remedies,” but in somewhat theoretical or even esoteric terms. Today, we’ll present a situation that demonstrates a practical intersection of the two. Our story comes from an April 24, 2020 decision from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York. [That’s New York’s name for its intermediate appellate court.]
A little more than eight years ago, we wrote: “[I]t seems like a fair number of lenders think the “A” in “SNDA” stands for “Amendment,” i.e., an amendment of the lease.” [Click 
A few weeks ago when COVID-19 kidnapped our blog postings, we wrote about recognizing the differences between individual catastrophes and community catastrophes. As further evidence that Ruminations has little if any influence on our industry, it seems to us that we stand almost alone in the way we are analyzing the current situation. While newspapers, other media, law firms, industry gurus, and general analysis sources are predicting the future from a global perspective – i.e., what will the “new normal” look like; will this coronavirus rear its head again, over and over; will it morph and be with us for a long time to come – the industry blog postings and law firm memorandums we are reading (by the hundreds) seem to focus on weaponization. Yes, how can one of the three: landlords, lenders, and tenants, defend or protect themselves against the others?
If blog postings, law firm memorandums, newspaper articles, televised pundits, and the like were effective medications for COVID-19 infections, this crisis would be over. Without even asking readers, we know that all of you are inundated with reliable [and less than reliable] information and guidance about this virus and how to deal with it. Unfortunately, more and more, it seems like we’re hearing Arthur “Guitar Boogie” Smith and Don Reno performing “Feudin’ Banjos” on their seminal 1955 recording. We don’t play the banjo. Therefore, we won’t be joining the COVID-19 legal advice band today.
Recent Comments