Articles Posted in Landlord and Tenant

Our firm handles real estate transactions as well as landlord-tenant matters.  At certain times, these two areas of the law may intersect.  One situation which occurs frequently is when a multi-family house is sold by its owner, who may have one or more tenants living at the property.

In such a situation, what are the legal responsibilities regarding the tenants?  Most standard real estate sale contracts contain a clause requiring that the property be conveyed vacant and free of tenants.  Unless there is a rider to the contract modifying this clause, this means that it is the seller’s responsibility to remove all tenants prior to closing.   When our attorneys are confronted with such a situation, the first thing to do is to ask the proposed new owner’s attorney whether they wish to retain the tenants living at the premises.  It is possible that the new owner would also like to rent the property, or a portion of same, and does not want to go through the time and expense of locating new tenants after the purchase is complete.

If the new owner wishes to retain the tenants after she purchases the property, the next step is to determine whether the current tenants have a written lease for the premises.  If they do, the lease should be reviewed by the buyer’s attorney, and, at closing the lease should be legally assigned to the new owner.  What this means is that the new owner “steps into the shoes” of the former owner regarding the obligations under the lease.  Any security deposit being held by the seller of the property should be transferred to the buyer at the closing.  In addition, any rent already paid by the tenant prior to the closing should be pro-rated at the closing.  For example, a closing is scheduled for April 15.  The tenant pays his monthly rent of $1,000.00 on April 1 as per his lease.  At the closing, the buyer should receive a $500.00 credit as his share of the rent for the one-half month that he owns the property.  He will collect rent directly from the tenant starting in the first month after the closing.

Our readers may have seen the recent report in The New York Times pertaining to the sale of Lord & Taylor’s flagship location in Manhattan to a co-working space company called WeWork. This seismic change in the use of “America’s Dress Address” is quite significant.  Lord & Taylor realized that its huge location in Manhattan was out of fashion and much more valuable when considered as a real estate asset only, rather than the proceeds generated by mostly clothing sales.  WeWork is a company most identifiable with the revolutionary means in which millennials are choosing to work.  Many millennials tend to be self-employed, but may prefer to work away from home.  They demand temporary and flexible work quarters.  WeWork allows such people to select a location for the short or long term at a price to be determined, without a long term commitment.  The worker or user has a professional location in which to engage in his occupation.

This post will address this transaction from a commercial leasing perspective.  The purchaser will use the Lord & Taylor property as its headquarters, through which it will presumably enter other commercial leasing transactions for other properties, and for shared work quarters in this property.  When entering commercial lease transactions for other properties, this author would suggest attempting to obtain the following provisions in such commercial leases.

Commercial leases typically identify the permitted use, such as real estate office, medical office and the like.  However, in this case, the tenant will want the use to be as broad as possible.  For instance, general office use, including co-working space and ancillary use may be suitable for this tenant.  That way, when multiple parties occupy and leave the premises and use the space for varied purposes, it will not be a lease violation.  Co-working spaces could be shared by diverse parties such as writers, day traders, salesmen as well as those who want to host conferences and meetings and the like.

“Tiny homes” have become popular among those who want their possessions pared down to the necessities so that they can save what may be a large mortgage payment on a large home and enjoy experiences such as adventurous travel in its place.  We  have reported on what we call the clutter reduction program .  Limiting excessive possessions has assisted in the development of the tiny homes movement.  However, tiny homes are not without big problems.  The New York Times  recently reported about the difficulty that tiny home owners have in what should be an obvious issue: where are you permitted to place your tiny home?  Individuals spend hours upon hours designing such homes, with innovative space saving techniques and environmentally friendly building systems, only to neglect the need to determine the proper legal placement of such tiny home.

Tiny homes, as any other structure, require the legal right to use any particular parcel of land.  Perhaps a particular municipality requires that structures be of at least a certain square footage or that lots be of a certain minimum size, in order to discourage the placement of less aesthetically pleasing mobile homes.  Zoning laws could be violated.  For instance, the zoning for a property location may allow for vacant land or commercial use only and the tiny homeowner will be living there.  Likewise, the zoning regulation may allow single family home use only on a lot and a conventional homeowner allowing another residential structure is in effect using the lot for multifamily use.  Also, linkage to municipal sewer systems and electrical grids may be desired.

Now that the tiny home owner has decided that acquiring the legal right to land use is required, this author  will render advice on the means to such acquisition.  Parking your tiny home in a public parking lot is not an answer, as many commercial property owners have posted notices in their parking lots to the effect that no vehicles are permitted during certain hours.  Vacant land owners may post no trespassing signs for the same reason.

Many landlords of commercial property  require that the obligations of the tenant be guaranteed by an individual or affiliated entity.  Most tenants of commercial leases are an entity, such as a corporation or limited liability company, whose only asset is the business engaged in the leased premises.  If the entity tenant cannot perform its lease obligations or leaves before the end of the lease, the landlord has no remedy besides renting the premises to a new tenant.  For this reason, most landlords require that an individual or entity closely affiliated with the tenant guaranty the tenant’s requirements.  That way, other assets of the guarantor may be available to the landlord if the tenant defaults under the lease.  This post will examine the various types of guaranties that may be requested by a landlord.

A full guaranty is the most broad, wherein the guarantor covers all of the tenant’s obligations under the lease.  Such obligations would include paying rent, real estate tax escalations, utility payments, common area maintenance payments, maintaining proper insurance, repair obligations and the like.  Landlords prefer this type of guaranty because there is no limit on the amount or extent of the obligation covered.  Also, the landlord does not need to meet any condition before enforcing the guaranty against the guarantor.

A partial guaranty is more limited.  Perhaps the obligations covered are only those that are monetary in nature or up to a certain amount.  Other limited guaranties may cover lease obligations such as keeping up with maintenance and repair obligations.  Partial guaranties could also “burn down” or “sunset” over time.  For instance, after a certain period of perfect performance by the tenant, the amount guaranteed reduces or the partial guaranty terminates entirely.  In partial guaranties, the landlord may need to meet certain conditions before it is enforced against the guarantor.