How To Lose Your Lease Guaranty

Print

As a business matter, a lease guaranty is almost always intended to be enforceable “come heck or high water,” no “ifs, ands or buts.” In a particular situation, that might not turn out to be the case, but that’s what people expect. But saying “no ifs, ands or buts,” doesn’t mean that any particular guaranty covers all circumstances for all of time. They are defined by their scope and can be limited by amount or time. We’ve written about limitations before and we’ll try not to cover that ground today. If any reader is interested, those earlier blog postings can be seen by clicking: HERE and HERE.

Today, we’re going to raise some kinds of things that could let a guarantor off the hook, in which case it wouldn’t matter how “tight” the guaranty was written. Regardless of whether space permitted, we couldn’t list every set of circumstances that could cause that result, even if we were good enough to know them all. So, we’ll just lay out some principles. Hopefully they will sensitize readers such that they will be able to look at any situation and know whether there is a possibility that the guaranty will turn out to be nothing more than a used piece of paper. [Read more…]

Print

Leases As Prose, Not Poetry

Print

From time to time, you actually get a gift. Last Tuesday, Ruminations received one from Judge Richard A. Posner. He sits on the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. No shrinking violet is he. The gift was his concurring opinion in a non-real property case and can be seen by clicking HERE and turning to page 17.

His gift, welcome as it was, resulted in our making our prepared, unusually short blog posting a little longer than we had planned. That in and of itself would trigger his ire, but for the triviality of the Ruminations Retail Real Estate blog when compared with what he sees from the bench.

Recall that his was a concurring opinion in the traditional sense. The reason he wrote it, however, is interesting and might be a commentary on the leases and other documents we, real estate people, write. Try these tidbits on for size: [Read more…]

Print

Two Different Words – Two Different Meanings; No Word; No Meaning

Print

Today, we’ll be looking at a court’s decision resolving a dispute over the default provisions of a mortgage loan repurchase agreement. Knowing that few readers harvest crops in that vineyard, all we will tell you about such agreements is “what they are.” Most readers know that the best of Wall Street created a financial product that combines a whole (big) bunch of individual mortgage loans, none paying more than (say) 6% and promises that some investors in such a loan collection can earn 18% (or numbers like that). It’s magic and infallible. And, did we say, “risk free”? OK, we’ve been a little tongue in cheek, and most of you have used those clues and are ready to cry out, “CMBS” or “Commercial Mortgage Backed Securities.” [Some might have been thinking “residential,” and called out another acronym, but “six of one, a half-dozen of another.” [Read more…]

Print

The Long And The Short Of It: The Invincible Lease

Print

There’s nothing like a mysterious title to draw the flies. Usually, Ruminations knows its destination before it begins each weekly journey. Not so today. Our long-ago set plan was to rant (once again) about the trees lost in the service of creating ever and ever longer agreements. Then, we saw a March 29, 2016 decision from the Court of Common Pleas for the State of Delaware that made us wonder if some agreements aren’t long enough. That opinion made us wonder if courts read our agreements as closely as we write them. That case, and we’ll rant about it soon enough, led us to think about some things written in a very fresh, April 27, 2016 decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Can we synthesize all of that? Frankly, “No.” That, however, won’t stop us. [Read more…]

Print

It Isn’t A Quiz Show Choice, “Ordinance Or Law.” So, What Is It?

Print

Riding on our success with an insurance discussion last week about the meaning and implications of having someone’s insurance coverage be “primary and noncontributory,” we thought we’d risk a similar topic this week. [To see what Ruminations said about “primary and noncontributory,” click: HERE.]

There are two pretty common land use and construction approval concepts across the country. If a building is destroyed beyond a certain degree (by fire or otherwise), its reconstruction has to comply with current law. “Grandparenting” (f/k/a “grandfathering”) doesn’t allow you to put it back the way it was. Generally, when it comes to construction codes, new buildings and major reconstructions need to meet most new code requirements. For example, if the “old” building had 1/2 inch wallboard (which was lawful when built) and the current code requires 3/4 inch wallboard, 3/4 inch is the answer to your question.

As to compliance with land use requirements, the most common “threshold” is 50% destruction. In some jurisdictions, that is 50% of value; in some that’s 50% of floor area; in some it might be 50% of bulk volume. The “threshold” is jurisdiction specific. Look it up. Regardless of the threshold, if the damage exceeds that level, you don’t have the right to put the building as it was, if it didn’t conform to the land use requirements on the day the damage took place. So, if the building was a prior nonconforming use because it was a three-story building now in a two-story zone, you don’t have the right to rebuild three stories. You need to get a variance. The same goes for setback violations, and so forth. And, yes, sometimes you can’t get the variance and the building can’t be reconstructed. [Read more…]

Print

Here Is A Primer On “Primary And Noncontributory”

Print

Many of us who “do” agreements, such as a lease, were seemingly trained by Admiral David Glasgow Farragut, “remembered for his order at the Battle of Mobile Bay (in which he was victorious) usually paraphrased as ‘Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead’ in U.S. Navy tradition.” [Thank you, Wikipedia.] How so? Well, we all like to jump in there and use terms of art, not our own, as if we understand those terms. Like, what? Try, insurance terms.

This will be a primer on the meaning or concept behind the insurance term: “primary and noncontributory.” [Yes, for those who are wondering, “primer” and “primary” both share the common Latin root: Prīmārius, meaning “of first rank.”] That’s helpful information because, as should become clear, the essence of what is behind “primary and noncontributory” is priority of payment, which insurance carrier pays first. Not “pays all,” but “pays first.” Yes, the “primary” in “primary and noncontributory” doesn’t mean “the most important”; it means it, the “primary” carrier, pays first. With that start, Ruminations is going to “back into” the bottom line” by explaining some related concepts. [By the way, “short’ was for last week.] [Read more…]

Print

Edward Snowden Can Help You Negotiate Your Agreements

Print

We’ve promised this before, but have yet to deliver. This time, we’ll keep our promise. Today’s blog posting will be short. Yes, short, but not unimportant. (Yes, short by Ruminations standards, only by those standards).

Data within data is called “metadata.” Your word processing program creates it and embeds it, hidden, within your documents. So does your spreadsheet program. Your digital camera does so as well. Digital videos have it. Web pages, too.

We’ll restrict today’s Ruminations to documents (because we promised you and ourselves) to be brief.

Buried and hidden in documents, especially those produced using Microsoft’s Word program, are the changes that were made to the original document. You might find who wrote the original document. You can find “hidden” text. You can find its revision history. If that’s not enough, there’s more as well. [Read more…]

Print

What’s In A Name? That Which We Call A Tenant…

Print

We titled today’s posting with apologies to Shakespeare, who wrote for this line for Juliet: “What’s in a name? That which we call a rose; By any other name would smell as sweet.” Ruminations has wanted to explore this issue for quite some time, but hasn’t found a “handle” to latch onto until now. What issue, you ask? It should be obvious, ABC, so to speak, that when you look at a lease (or any other agreement), you should be able to know who the landlord and tenant are. Amazingly, that isn’t always the case. Allow us to continue.

But, before we begin, we’ll explain that when the problem arises, we’ve only seen it concern the identity of the tenant, not the landlord. That’s never been discomforting because lack of care or lack of knowledge is more common when the lease involves a small space and, in most of those cases, the form used comes from the landlord and the landlord knows its own name even if it isn’t already built into the form itself. [Read more…]

Print