Landlords, Beware The Naked Assignment

Print

It’s been a while since we’ve pointed out that, using the words employed by a California court in 2001, “[a] lease of real property is both a conveyance of an estate in land (a leasehold) and a contract. It gives rise to two sets of rights and obligations – those arising by virtue of the transfer of an estate in land to the tenant (privity of estate), and those existing by virtue of the parties’ express agreements in the lease (privity of contract).”

Should anyone care? Yes. And, here’s an example that should concern some landlords and benefit some tenants. It deals with a lease assignment.

We’ll lift the words used by two other California courts to explain two different paths by which an assignee takes on liability as the “tenant.” The first is from 1983 and the second from 1937: [Read more…]

Print

Is There A Limit To Waiving A Non-Waiver Clause?

Print

When we first wrote about the loophole in non-waiver clauses that recognizes parties can orally agree to waive such clauses even one that explicitly say that there can be no oral waivers, we got some notes expressing incredulity. After the reality set in, the notes started asking whether there were any limits to this “loophole.” We at Ruminations didn’t know how to answer until we came across a May 12, 2017 decision from the Texas Supreme Court in a case where one of the parties has this name: Boo Nathanial Bradberry. The decision can be seen by clicking: HERE. It ruled there was a limit and its reasoning makes pretty good sense. [Read more…]

Print

Are All Constructions Structural?

Print

Again, we ask: “What is a structure?” We say, “again,” because Ruminations explored (mined) this topic a little more than three years ago in a blog posting titled: “What Is A Structural Component? Do You Know?” To see it (anew or again), click: HERE.

We’ll start with the take-away for today. It is that we might want to define important words that we ponder at times. “Structure” and the form “structural” come to mind. After all, if you’ve been in business of “reading leases (or other real property agreements)” for any decent period of time, you’ve faced the need to answer whether some “thing” is a structure. For sure, buildings are structures. Are fences or retaining walls structures? Perhaps the answer is fact-dependent. Perhaps we need to call an expert in the mold of Justice Potter Stewart (who wrote, in 1964, “I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description [‘hard-ore pornography]; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that.”). [Read more…]

Print

More Boring Insurance Stuff

Print

Yes, today’s posting will be boring and perhaps a little dry. And, to add insult to injury, nothing in it will be earth-shattering. But, knowledge is power. And, even if you don’t want to be powerful, you certainly don’t want to be drafting documents and making business agreements involving insurance without knowing what is available and what is possible. Do you? We didn’t think so.

Yes, today we write about insurance, and whenever we do so, we repeat this caveat: “Find and rely on a genuine insurance expert. This stuff is not intuitive.” Our primary goal is to let our followers know enough about insurance to realize that they and we don’t know enough. A secondary goal is to get those of us who include insurance requirements in our documents to know that last year’s (or even last week’s) text may no longer be what we would like to have written. Lastly, for those who buy insurance, today’s blog posting might induce you to call and say hello to your insurance broker or other advisor. [Read more…]

Print

To A Hammer Everything Looks Like A Nail

Print

Knowing what you don’t know is a good thing. A practical application of that statement comes when you are trying to figure out how a particular jurisdiction will treat a particular agreement such as a lease. There are some legal principles that suffuse state law throughout the United States. The law of damages is NOT one of those principles. Yes, the generality of “damages” is pretty much the same all over, but the details are not. Here’s an example from a just-decided Colorado case from its Supreme Court.

The question that court considered was whether a seller could really make the choice of remedies provided-for in the following contract clause: [Read more…]

Print

Five Or More Take-Aways From A Single Mailbox (Rule)

Print

There must be a backstory to the case Ruminations will look at today. But, first, we’ll ramble a little, touching on this ‘n that.

There’s a common law rule called the “mailbox rule” or if you are on the eastern side of the Atlantic in another English-speaking county, the “posting rule.” [The United States and Great Britain – two nations separated by a common language. Credit: George Bernard Shaw.] The rule says that, absent some other bar, an offer is accepted when it is presented to the postal service, put in the hands of a postal worker or placed in a mail box). Basically, absent saying otherwise, an offeror is deemed to have “appointed” the postal service as its agent for receipt of an acceptance. The risk of receipt is thus placed on the offeror. This rule applies in other situations, one of which is relevant to today’s story.

This is a good place to remind all readers to carefully review the Ruminations disclaimer at the bottom of the blog page. Today, our disclaimer clearly means that no reader should try to learn the law from our description of the “mailbox rule.” Our description is just a starting point for understanding its extent and, more importantly, its limitations. That having been said, don’t ignore that the rule exists. [Read more…]

Print

Who’s On First? Keeping Track Of Basic Facts

Print

Please don’t ask for the central theme of today’s blog posting. We’ve done so already and came up empty-headed. The closest we’ve come is that we’re writing about how a stitch in time saves nine.

The genesis of today’s subject is a very simple case that reached a California appellate court. It probably isn’t worth looking at, but for those compelled to do so, the February 2, 2017 decision can be seen by clicking: HERE.] The court was confronted with a situation where, on its face, the signatory to an indemnification agreement was not authorized to sign the agreement on behalf of the indemnitor (the one who would have to pay). There was no indication that the document was signed with the intention of fooling anyone. It appears that the person signing the agreement was confused or ignorant as to “who” should have done the signing. We’ll explain.

There were two limited liability companies. One was the sole manager of the second. We’ll call the first company, the parent, and the second, the child. The parent had a managing member. He was the kind of person who breathes, unlike, say, Citizens United. He could sign on behalf of the parent, but when signing for the child, the “proper” signatory would be “by parent, as sole member of child, by breathing person, as managing member of parent.” Get it? If not, then realize that the “person” who could sign for the child was the parent. But, because the parent was an entity who could not hold a pen, a “real” person needs to sign on behalf of the parent. [Read more…]

Print

Rights Of First Refusal Transmogrify Into Purchase Options

Print

Rights of first refusal create difficult situations. For that reason, knowing landlords resist granting them. Unknowing ones don’t know not to resist. Then again, “resist” doesn’t mean never. So, like it or not, there are plenty of leases with such a provision.

We’ve written about rights of first refusal and alternatives to such provisions. If you’d like to get on the same page as those who have seen what we’ve written in prior blog postings, click: HERE and HERE.

A few weeks ago, we came across a case that gives a pretty good explanation about what a first of right refusal is and what it becomes. But, we’re getting ahead of ourselves. First, here’s the story.

A landlord owned two adjacent parcels. One was tenanted by a quick service restaurant, the other by a discount store. The quick service restaurant had the earlier lease and that lease gave it a right of first refusal to purchase both parcels. The later (in time) discount store lease had a purchase option (not a right of refusal). The option was exercisable during the last two years of the lease term, but was expressly subject to the right of first refusal in the quick service restaurant’s lease. Got it so far? [Read more…]

Print