Is The Next Landlord Liable For The Brokerage Commission?


We’ve always been a little murky as to whether a successor landlord always becomes obligated to pay renewal commissions to the original broker responsible for the presence of an existing tenant. After all, there is no actual agreement between that later landlord and the broker whose original commission agreement calls for the payment of a renewal commission. The broker can’t point to where it and the successor landlord “shook hands.”

But, it is pretty common for leases themselves to include provisions such as: [Read more…]


What Is A “Reasonable Time”?


What is a “reasonable time” for something to happen or to get done? Do we ask this question of ourselves when we use that phraseology in our leases and other agreements? We can’t avoid using concepts such as “reasonable,” “material,” “promptly,” and the like, but are we being as careful as we should be when sprinkling them around?

There are good reasons to use what Ruminations has called “weasel words” or “deliberate ambiguity.” [For earlier thoughts on this subject, click: HERE.] Basically, we don’t always know how long something should or will take, even when diligence is observed and proper efforts (whatever those are) are employed. After all, we may know that the time for something to happen may be affected by adverse weather, but we don’t know whether there will be any such weather. We might know that a particular repair, say a roof replacement, might take 30 days from beginning to end in the summer, but not how long it might take in a winter season five years hence. So, we use “reasonable” when setting a time limit for such work to take place. [Read more…]


It’s A Rule: A Good Rant Is Cathartic


Can you make a list of the institutions or people who employ “Make ‘em up as you go along” rules? To get the thinking process going, try bank tellers or low-level government employees. E.g.: Teller: “You need to include your middle name in the signature used to endorse that check. It’s a bank rule.” You: “But, that wouldn’t be my signature. I don’t sign my name that way. That’s my rule.” Who wins?

Someplace in the annals of U.S. Supreme Court decisions is a statement to the effect that long after the need for a law has expired, we find a new justification to enforce that law. We know it’s in there, and when we find the actual quote and the Justice who said that, we’ll post our (re)discovery.

So, now we’ll rant. Why do some, perhaps most, commercial lenders employ so many documents? Don’t any of the old ones (the documents, not the lenders) ever die gracefully? We have a notion, completely unsupported by any facts, that the industry suppliers of “stock” loan documents all engage in the following marketing process. They produce a grid listing themselves and three or four competitors across its top. Then, along the side, they list the 20 or so forms in their own offering with a check mark in their own column matching each such form. Their competitors’ columns are populated with a combination of green check marks and red X’s. This, of course, proves that the chart producer has the “best” loan document generating program.

Well, that doesn’t sit well with the X- ladened column holders. So, they add all of the “missing” forms to their own packages, and, for good measure, add a few the others don’t have. This infuriates each of the others, who then declare: “I’ll match that and raise you one form.” You get the idea.

Now, that’s only a start. For example, one of the documents is a “Corporate Consent to Loan” form. It is pre-printed (today, “pre-printed” means computer generated), and is on the loan document checklist. It doesn’t matter that the borrower is a proprietorship or a limited liability company. The bank “officer” MUST get this form executed. Of course, the officer (or closing agent) has no idea what is going on other than, “It’s a rule.”

Now, Ruminations knows this really doesn’t happen. NOT! (There’s our pop culture reference for today).

There are less obvious “checklist” items for which the reason for existence is known only to archeologists. Does a lender really need a copy of the canceled check for an insurance policy paid for eight months earlier even if it has a certificate saying the policy is still in effect? Doesn’t one subsume the other? Oh, yeah, each of us could make up a reason, one that starts with: “But, suppose …” We’d prefer to hear: “Oh, yeah, we don’t really need it.” [Except, it’s on the checklist and we really do need it because: (a) it’s on the checklist; (b) that’s the rule; (c) suppose we get audited: (d) no one else ever objected; (e) for as long as I’ve been here …; (f) etc.]

Isn’t there a rule that rants don’t have to be orderly and organized? So, here’s a related one. Ask, “Why do you need this?” and get this answer: “Because that’s our rule.”

While we are on a tear, is there a rule that once a new form is created, it can neither ever be eliminated nor integrated into another document? There must be.

At a time when a corporate filer was no longer required to stamp or emboss its seal on its federal tax return, the form still had a place for those filers who still wanted to show off their seal. Today, one will still find lenders (and others) who insist upon the placement of a physical seal on documents that don’t otherwise require one. [The word “seal” alone does the job in the limited circumstances where a “seal” has a legal implication.]

Apparently, it is easier (safer) to add than to delete. Do form documents ever get any shorter? Almost always – no. Kudos to those enterprises that periodically step back and revisit theirs, few as those enterprises may be in number.

Well, Ruminations is a rule breaker. Rants are required to be long and rambling. Today, we just rambled but have kept it short (for Ruminations, that is). We only wanted to light some kindling for our readers to benefit from as they throw their own wood on the fire. Join us in today’s rant theme by posting a comment.

Our last thought for today is that making up rules as you go along isn’t all bad. Take “Calvinball” for example. What is that? Click: HERE or HERE to find out.


You Need To Know French To Choose Applicable Law For Your Agreement


Today, we begin with a French lesson. The French word, “renvoi,” means “to return,” in the sense of “sending back.” In law, “Renvoi” is a doctrine, and what follows is why you’ll be pleased to know that.

Last week, we tackled the humdrum, excitement-lacking “boilerplate” of specifying, in a lease or other agreement, an exclusive venue for litigation. What we didn’t even hint at was that just because the parties are obligated to duke it out in a particular jurisdiction doesn’t mean that the law of that jurisdiction will apply to their fight. Often, but not always, parties are free to specify which jurisdiction’s (state’s) law will govern their dispute. As to the location (venue) for the match, though some states will allow contracting parties with no connection to those jurisdictions to avail themselves of that state’s courts, most still require the parties or the subject matter of the dispute to at least “touch” their state. For example, if a loan is made in State X on a property in State Y, but the lender or borrower is in State “Z,” it is likely that each of those three states would allow its courts to hear the dispute. But, which state’s law would apply? A less than comprehensive list of the factors a court will use in deciding to apply the law of a jurisdiction other than its own would be: the parties’ intent, their domiciles, where the lease or other agreement was executed, and where the property is located. In the case of “property,” a secondary analysis is made as to whether the property is primary or secondary to the agreement in front of the court. For example, a personal guaranty of a mortgage loan may only have an attenuated relationship to the property serving as collateral for the loan and the parties are able to call for jurisdiction where either the borrower or lender “resides.” It could also be, but isn’t required to be, where the property is located. [A separate issue is whether a party or either party can be served in other than its “home” state, but we’ll leave that for another day (if ever)]. [Read more…]


Rectifying Sloppy Agreements


A 25-page court decision out of the Supreme Court of British Columbia has triggered today’s blog posting. The decision describes a convoluted, time-extended, back-and-forth negotiation over a set of interrelated, broker-prepared offers to buy and sell. In that marketplace, such documents signed by the offering party and “accepted” by the other one become “contracts of sale and purchase.” The back and forth with these documents began in early February, After a number of handwritten changes and the addition of a couple of pages, they were finally “accepted” in late July.

There were a few issues with the wording of the three separate “contracts,” one for each of the three properties being sold. We will focus on two of those “issues,” but will describe all those we think the court described.

One of the main issues had to do with the way the buyer’s name was shown. It appeared in multiple places in each contract. The actual buyer’s name included the word “Investment,” but the broker who first prepared the documents wrote “Development.” Fortunately, for the sake of sanity, the buyer noticed these errors and made corrections, but just not thoroughly enough. By way of example, the name printed above the buyer’s signature line in one of the contracts read “Development” when it should have read “Investment.” Both companies actually existed and they, in fact, were related entities. [Read more…]


Hindsight Isn’t Always 20/20


Guilty! Ruminations and its author have done this, though we’ve long been conscious of its flaws. What is “this”? It is that we’ve criticized documents prepared by others when we “weren’t there.” Before we proceed with today’s rant, a small clarification is in order. There will be no apology for our pointing out unnecessarily vague or ambiguous language. In fact, we think there is a place for intentional ambiguity and remain firmly behind the thoughts we expressed seven years ago in a piece titled: The Artful Use of Intentional Ambiguity in Document Drafting. It can be seen by clicking: HERE. What we are pleading guilty to is to the crime of criticizing others based on business terms that have included or omitted from their documents. Often, that’s the wrong thing to do. Let the ones among us, those who have not done this, throw the first stone.

Experience and intellect qualify us to analyze a lease or purchase agreement or loan document or whatever. Those qualify us to question why some things have been included and others omitted. We are not alone. Many, many readers (and non-readers) of Ruminations are similarly or even better qualified. But, having the ability to do so doesn’t mean we should be doing so. Why do we feel that way? [Read more…]


Three Gems (Or So We Think)


We’ve been doing Ruminations since 2011 and yet this is the first time we’ve deliberately done a multi-topic blog posting. Generally, when we choose a topic (400+ thus far) we dig in and treat(?) our readers to several pages of our ramblings. That approach has precluded our covering simple or easily contained topics, ones undeserving of deep drilling down. So, today, for the first time (but, perhaps not the last), we present a little of this and a little of that.

Overnight Delivery. In New York, service of lawsuit papers upon an attorney in a pending matter may be accomplished in a number of ways, including: [Read more…]


Don’t Know How To Do It? Then, Don’t!


Some concepts are so simple that we never think that we’d have to point them out. But, today, one of those concepts occurred to us, and we’d like to share it with our readers. Here it is:

If you are going to craft documents, be they leases, purchase agreements or ‘whatever,’ you should know what you are doing.

Experience can be a good teacher, if your experience is good. Bad experiences could be a good teacher as well if you learn (quickly and correctly) and especially if they were someone else’s bad experiences.

Today’s blog posting was triggered by a nearly year-old Maryland court decision. The particular problem pointed out by the court, however, is something we’ve seen played out more than several times over the years. In this version, it involved a right and option provision amended into an existing lease. The relevant text read as follows: [Read more…]