Articles Posted in commercial lease

A “holdover tenant” is a tenant who remains on the premises after the end of the term of the lease. In most commercial real estate leases there is a holdover provision, which states that the leasehold continues on a month-to-month basis. The lease usually provides that the month to month occupancy is under the same terms as specified in the lease, though there is a provision for increased monthly rent. But what exactly are the “same terms”… is everything included? In a recent decision from Southern California, the original Lease contained a right of first refusal. The holdover commercial tenant sought to exercise it, but the court said, the right of first refusal was not an essential terms of the lease, so it did not carry over into the holdover tenancy.

In Smyth v. Berman, plaintiff Smyth operated Awesome Audio, an audio recording company. Since the mid-1990s, Smyth has leased 5725 Cahuenga Boulevard in North Hollywood for the business (Google Street View). The 2011 Lease provided: “If the Tenant remains in possession after this lease ends, the continuing tenancy will be from month to month.” The lease had expired but the plaintiff continued to possess the premises and pay rent. He sought to exercise the right of first refusal, but the landlord declined, and this lawsuit was the result.

The court first looked at the relationship of the parties. When a lease expires but the tenant remains in possession, the relationship of the landlord and tenant changes. The “lessor-lessee relationship” based on “ ‘privity of contract’ ” ends, and a new “landlord”-“tenant” relationship based on “ ‘privity of estate’ ” springs into being by the operation of law. (Civ. Code, § 1945.) This new “hold-over” tenancy is presumed to continue under the same terms contained in the now-expired lease except as those terms may have been modified by the landlord and tenant. (Civ. Code, § 1945.) Thus the issue in this case – If the expired lease contained a right of first refusal, is that right one of the terms that presumptively carries forward into the holdover tenancy?

Lease Options are commonly seen in California. The agreement gives the tenant an irrevocable right to buy the property under certain conditions, and usually have restrictions based on tenant defaults. Sacramento real estate attorneys most often see issues arise regarding how the option is exercised, tender of the option price, and what the purchase price will be. Easiest is when the option specifies the purchase price or provides an easy formula to determine it. More contentious is setting the price at ‘fair market value,’ because buyers and sellers seldom agree, and an expensive process of multiple appraisals may be required, along with court intervention. Such was the situation in a recent decision concerning a commercial property.

In Petrolink, Inc. v Lantel Enterprises, The parties had entered a lease concerning a gas station at Cajon Junction in San Bernardino County. The original lease was with Tosco, so it probably involved the 76 station now visible on Google maps. The Lease gave the tenant the right (or option) to buy the property at “fair market value.” The provision stated:

“21. RIGHT TO PURCHASE. As long as the Tenant is not in default of this Agreement, Tenant will have an option to purchase the property at any time after the first Ten (10) years of the lease term at a price equal to the fair market value of the property based on an appraisal.”

Leases often have terms allowing extension or renewal for additional time (the difference between extension and renew discussed below). Sacramento real estate attorneys may be called on to interpret the terms of the renewal option when they are not clearly drafted; sometimes it takes a court ruling to reach a result. A well-composed lease will provide a way to determine the new rent, but otherwise the same lease terms generally will apply. However, what happens when the number of optional new terms is not clear?

That was the case in Ginsberg v. Gamson, where the parties entered a lease for a commercial property for sale of textiles and clothing on South Le Brea Avenue in Los Angeles. The parties got in a dispute, and the right to renew the lease was an issue. Of course, the landlord said the lease provided for only one renewal, the tenant that there were unlimited renewals. The “Option to Extend Renewal” which was under review is set out at the end of this blog.

California Courts apply two rules that apply to interpreting lease provisions that look like they allow perpetual renewals:

In the past, when multiple parties were obligated under the same commercial lease, they were presumed to be jointly liable. They are each responsible for their share of the total. If the other side wanted to enforce the agreement, they had to name all the jointly liable parties in the same lawsuit (the compulsory joinder or all-or-none rule). If you filed suit but couldn’t locate one of the lessees, they were off the hook. But over time the Courts changed the rule by converting “joint” obligations into “joint and several” obligations. These are considered to be a contract that is made both separately with each promisor and jointly with all the promisors. Civil Code section 1659 provides “Where all the parties who unite in a promise receive some benefit from the consideration, whether past or present, their promise is presumed to be joint and several.”

In DKN Holdings LLC v. Wade Faerber, Caputo, Faerber, and Neal leased from DKN a commercial space in a shopping center to operate a fitness center for ten years. The lease stated that the parties who signed the lease “shall have joint and several responsibility” to comply with the lease terms. Caputo alone sued DKN for fraud, and DKN counter-claimed for rent. DKN did not bring the other tenants into the lawsuit. After trial, all the tenant’s claims were rejected, but the landlord was awarded over $2.8 million.

Last week I discussed a cotenancy provision in a California commercial lease, where the court found that the rent abatement aspect – if the specified cotenant was not operating, the tenant’s rent is reduced or eliminated – was found to be an unenforceable penalty. That court also looked at whether the provision was unconscionable, and thus unenforceable. Unconscionability (codified at Civil 1670.5) has no specific legal definition, but generally means extreme unfairness. Business and real estate attorneys often see a situation where one party gets a really bad deal, but that alone does not make it unenforceable. California courts have developed an analysis requiring two elements, “Procedural,” and “Substantive.” In the decision being addressed here, the court found that Procedural element was not fulfilled so the cotenancy provision was not unconscionable.

Procedural Unconscionability.

Cotenancy provisions are often required by larger retail tenants in shopping centers of all sizes. They require other specified stores in the center to be open and operating, on the assumption that these other stores will draw the desired mix of potential customers. They come in two flavors; opening requirements, meaning that the requirement is fulfilled before the tenant is required to open; and Operating requirements, meaning that the tenant’s obligations continunue only so long as the named tenants remain in business. Parties to a commercial lease may need to consult with a Sacramento real estate attorney to clearly define the cotenancy requirements in their lease, so that they do not face any surprises, as one tenant faced in a recent decision when their cotenancy provision was found to be an unenforceable penalty because the tenant had never really considered what its harm would be if the named store did not open.

Under California law, an unenforceable penalty lacks a proportional relationship between the forfeiture compelled and the damages or harm that might actually flow from the failure to perform a covenant or satisfy a condition. The test requires a comparison of