LIEB BLOG

Legal Analysts

Showing posts with label Landlord. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Landlord. Show all posts

Thursday, May 21, 2020

Commercial Personal Guaranties Deemed Unenforceable in NYC Council’s COVID-19 Relief Bill – Litigation to Follow if Enacted


On May 13, 2020, the NYC Council approved Int. No. 1932-A, which makes substantial changes to personal guaranties in commercial leases. The bill is on the Mayor’s desk to be enacted.

The bill’s purpose is to provide relief to NYC commercial tenants impacted by COVID-19. It temporarily prohibits the enforcement of personal liability provisions in commercial leases or rental agreements. It would amend the Administrative Code of the City of New York by adding Section 22-1005 and adding Paragraph 14 to Subdivision a of section 22-902 of the NYC Administrative Code.

If enacted, the bill would render guarantee provisions unenforceable against natural persons who are not a tenant in commercial leases or other rental real property. The law would only impact liability for the payment of rent and other charges caused by an occurrence of default, and subject to the following conditions:
1. The tenant must satisfy at least one of the following:
a)     The tenant was required to cease serving patrons food or beverage for on-premises consumption or to cease operation under EO 202.3;
b)     The tenant was a non-essential retail establishment subject to in-person limitations under guidance issued by the NYS Department of Economic Development pursuant to EO 202.6; or
c)     The tenant was required to close to members of the public under EO 202.7; and

2. The default or other event which caused the natural person to become personally liable for such obligation occurred between March 7, 2020 and September 30, 2020, inclusive.

Under the bill, an attempt to enforce a personal liability provision that the landlord knows or reasonably should know is unenforceable, pursuant to the above, shall be deemed commercial tenant harassment, which could result in compensatory and punitive damages and attorneys’ fees and court costs. See N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 22-903.

Sounds too good to be true for many tenants and often when it’s too good to be true, it’s untrue. Expect this law to be challenged on constitutional grounds should it be enacted. Specifically, the bill seems to impair the Contracts Clause of the United States Constitution because it retroactively affects personal guaranties entered into prior to the bill’s passing. For such a claim to succeed, the initial inquiry under the impairment of contracts clause contains three components:
  1. Whether there is a contractual relationship;
  2. Whether a change in law impairs that contractual relationship; and
  3. Whether the impairment is substantial. U.S.C.A. Const. Art. 1, § 10, cl. 1; American Economy Ins. Co. v. State, 30 N.Y.3d 136 (2017).
While tenants will surely argue that the bill doesn’t substantially impair the parties’ contractual relationship, as the bill only covers rent and payments for the period of March 7, 2020 to September 30, 2020, landlords will counter that the personal guarantee was a material term of the lease and a substantial reason that the landlord agreed to enter into the contract.

For analogy, the Court of Appeals has previously struck down similar government interference in contacts. In Patterson v. Carey, the Court of Appeals struck down a law which curtailed toll authority bondholders’ ability to increase their tolls for Jones Beach State Parkway on constitutional grounds. 41 N.Y.2d 714 (1977). 

If the NYC bill passes, it would likely undergo similar challenges and review as the law in Patterson and be deemed unconstitutional. The bill’s impairment to contractual rights agreed upon by landlords and guarantors would be substantial, especially considering that the bill does not merely delay a landlord’s right to enforce the guarantee during the period stated in the bill, it extinguishes it altogether.

Mayor DeBlasio has until June 12, 2020 to either sign, veto, or do nothing. If the Mayor signs the bill or does nothing, the bill will automatically become law. If the Mayor vetoes the bill, it is sent back to the Council. The Council can then override the Mayor’s veto with a 2/3 vote.

In the meantime, both landlords and tenants should contact their attorneys to ensure that their interests are protected and to prepare for expected lawsuits to follow. For ideas on how to creatively resolve lease issues due to coronavirus and for tips on important lease provisions when renegotiating, listen to our podcasts HERE and HERE.



Friday, March 27, 2020

Penalties for Keeping Your Real Estate Opened in Coronavirus Expanded

By Executive Order 202.11, Governor Cuomo enacted new penalties, in addition to what we discussed in our blog - What Happens When You Ignore the Essential Services Executive Order, if you keep your real estate open in violation of an Executive Order.

The new penalty order states as follows:
During the period when an Executive Order limiting operation of a type of facility or limiting the number of persons who may occupy any space is in effect, any operation of such a facility or occupancy of any such space by more than the number of persons allowed by said Executive Order shall be deemed to be a violation of law and in particular, but not by way of limitation, shall be deemed to be a violation of the Uniform Code or other local building code in effect in the jurisdiction in which the facility or space is located. In the event of any such violation, any state, county, or local police officer authorized to enforce laws within the jurisdiction in which the space or facility is located is authorized to remove persons from such space or facility. In addition, in the event of such violation, any state, county, or local code enforcement official or fire marshal authorized to enforce the Uniform Code or other local building code within the jurisdiction in which the facility or space is located is authorized to issue an appearance ticket, a Notice of Violation, an Order to Remedy such violation, which shall require immediate compliance, and/or a Do Not Occupy Order to any owner, operator, or occupant of any such facility or space. Nothing in this provision shall limit the authority of any governmental unit or agency to take such other and/or additional enforcement actions to the extent necessary to ensure compliance with such occupancy-related directives or facility operation-related directives.
 As such, here is your exposure:

  • Charge of "violation of law"
  • Charge of "violation of the Uniform Code or other local building code"
  • Removal by police
  • Receipt of an appearance ticket, Notice of Violation, and/or Order to Remedy
  • Receipt of a Do Not Occupy Order to the "owner, operator, or occupant of any such facility or space"
Oh, by the way, you are KILLING people. So, stop it and close when you are ordered to close.

The end.


Thursday, March 26, 2020

Podcast | Creative Lease Workout Options

Latest Podcast - Sharing creative lease solutions for commercial landlords and tenants who have lost revenue from coronavirus.

Click here to listen to podcast


Tuesday, March 24, 2020

Coronavirus in Your Multi-Family / Commercial Building

If you learn that someone is infected with Coronavirus in a unit, do not notify other tenants or conduct cleaning.

Instead, contact your local (County / City) and follow their guidance. Do nothing else.

You are ill-equipped to create a protocol and may further injure your tenants by acting imprudently.

There are privacy concerns, cleanliness concerns, isolation concerns, testing concerns and the like.

Therefore, if you learn of a positive diagnosis in your property, contact your local health department and follow their guidance.


Wednesday, March 18, 2020

Coronavirus Frustrates the Purpose of a Sit Down Restaurant's Lease, No?

Can a tenant terminate a lease because their purpose was frustrated?

We are getting contacted by restaurateurs who want to get out of their lease because they have to close their sit down / dine in operation and only offer delivery / take out, but can they?

The appellate courts have held that "[i]n order to invoke this defense, 'the frustrated purpose must be so completely the basis of the contract that, as both parties understood, without it, the transaction would have made little sense.'"

On that holding, the doctrine of frustration of purpose seems like it may get a restauranteur out of their lease.

In that holding, an office was able to terminate their lease because the CO didn't permit office use. Through analogizing to where an office tenant utilized frustration of purpose to get out of a lease because of an "inability to lawfully use the premises" based upon the CO, it's possible that a restaurateur can utilize the doctrine of frustration of purpose to terminate the lease where the purpose of the lease was to offer sit-down dining and now the same is not allowed as a matter of law.

However, appellate courts have also held that "a frustration of purpose defense 'is not available when the event preventing performance was foreseeable.'"

Expect a lot of restaurants to make this argument going forward and the issue of foreseeability will be everything if it gets to a trial. 

Thursday, March 12, 2020

Coronavirus & Commercial Leasing: What happens when your tenant doesn't pay rent?

Landlords - Here is your future:
  • There is a Coronavirus quarantine (voluntary or mandatory), which closes your property;
  • Tenant is forced to close;
  • Being closed, tenant makes no revenue or limited revenue from working from home;
  • Without revenue, tenant defaults on rent;
  • Without rent, landlord is now at risk of foreclosure and bankruptcy; and
  • Consequently, landlord will need to enforce its lease to stave off foreclosure and bankruptcy.


Can landlord successfully enforce its commercial lease?

If landlord seeks to enforce the lease, tenant will likely counterclaim for a rent abatement (reduction or elimination of rent) because of its inability to utilize the property. 

Who is going to win? 

The result likely depends on whether the lease has a clause called a "Force Majeure" or "Non-Performance" or something like that. 

This clause may read something like this: 
The Parties shall not be liable for any failure, delay or interruption in performing such Party's respective obligations hereunder due to causes or conditions beyond the control of such Party. Further, such Party shall not be liable unless the failure, delay or interruption shall result from the failure on the part of such Party to use reasonable care to prevent or reasonable efforts to cure such failure, delay or interruption.
"Causes or conditions beyond the control of such Party", shall mean and include acts of God ... war ... acts of third parties for which such Party is not responsible ... or any other condition or circumstances, whether similar to or different from the foregoing (it being agreed that the foregoing enumeration shall not limit or be characteristic of such conditions or circumstances) which is beyond the control of such Party or which could not be prevented or remedied by reasonable effort and at reasonable expense.
If the clause exists, the landlord has a shot at victory, but without the clause, the tenant will likely prevail, at least in part.

If the clause exists, the landlord's victory is dependent on the specific language of the clause. That is because of the rule that "[o]rdinarily, only if the force majeure clause specifically includes the event that actually prevents a party's performance will that party be excused." As a result, the language of the clause is everything.

Assuming the sample clause exists in the lease, here are the impending battlegrounds for ensuing litigation on enforcing the lease:

  • Is Coronavirus an act of god? 
  • If yes, is a quarantine resulting from Coronavirus also an act of god?
  • If no, is a quarantine resulting from Coronavirus an act of third-parties? 
  • If yes, did landlord undertake efforts to prevent the quarantine at the property? 
  • If yes, were those efforts reasonable? 
  • If no, did landlord undertake efforts to remedy the Coronavirus spread at the property?
  • If yes, were those efforts reasonable?  

We know that these lawsuits are coming and they are going to come fast. These lawsuits came after 9/11 - see One World Trade Center LLC v. Cantor Fitzgerald Securities. Only this time they are going to be everywhere because unlike 9/11, Coronavirus is everywhere.

Landlords - now is the time to ascertain your rights, determine your enforcement plan and create a contingency strategy. If you cannot enforce your lease, it's time to contact your lender and seek a forbearance (temporary reprieve from mortgage payments to avoid foreclosure). Doing nothing will create a strong likelihood of foreclosure and bankruptcy. It's time to act.





  

Monday, February 17, 2020

Real Estate Investing with Andrew Lieb - Guest Interview Opportunity

Friday, February 07, 2020

Recent Legal Matters CE Course & DOS Guidance on Paying Landlord's Agents

Last night, 2/6/2020, we were thrilled to have a packed house attending our new CE - Recent Legal Matters.

Image may contain: 10 people, people sitting and indoor

While not specifically a course topic, the DOS Guidance's Additional FAQs (updated: 1/31/2020) was brought up by students. Specifically, students inquired about FAQ #5:
5. CAN A LANDLORD’S AGENT COLLECT A “BROKER FEE” FROM THE PROSPECTIVE TENANT? No, a landlord’s agent cannot be compensated by the prospective tenant for bringing about the meeting of the minds. NY RPL § 238-a(1)(a) provides, in part, “no landlord, lessor, sub-lessor or grantor may demand any payment, fee, or charge for the processing, review or acceptance of an application, or demand any other payment, fee or charge before or at the beginning of the tenancy, except background checks and credit checks….” The fee to bring about the meeting of the minds would be a “payment, fee or charge before or at the beginning of the tenancy” other than a background or credit check as provided in this section. Accordingly, a landlord’s agent that collects a fee for bringing about the meeting of the minds between the landlord and tenant (i.e., the broker fee) from the tenant can be subject to discipline. 
What good timing for this to come up because our course materials included an explanation of the requirements for an agency (DOS) to issue a regulation, which were not undertaken with respect to this Guidance. As such, the Guidance is NOT law, but, instead an agency's interpretation of law. With respect to the Guidance constituting an interpretation rather than law, we explained how and when an agency's interpretation is given deference by the courts who are the co-equal branch of government with the constitutional authority to be the final voice on interpreting statutes (laws). Incident thereto, we shared the following quotes from case law with our students:
It is well settled that “[a]n agency's interpretation of its own regulation ‘is entitled to deference if that interpretation is not irrational or unreasonable’” &
“the question is one of pure statutory reading and analysis, dependent only on accurate apprehension of legislative intent, there is little basis to rely on any special competence or expertise of the  administrative agency and its interpretive regulations... And, of course, if the regulation runs counter to the clear wording of a statutory provision, it should not be accorded any weight.”
Oh, do we expect a legal battle on this issue. Stay tuned. It's going to get entertaining fast.

Tuesday, December 24, 2019

New Law: The Return of the Yellowstone Injunction

On December 20, 2019, A2554 was enacted to "[p]rohibit[] commercial leases from including a waiver of the right to a declaratory judgment action and states that the inclusion of such a waiver in a commercial lease shall be null and void as against public policy."

New Real Property Law section 235-h took effect immediately on signing.

Welcome back Yellowstone Injunctions - it's like you never left us in the commercial arena. Commercial tenants facing eviction should consult with an attorney to get an injunction immediately before they are evicted.

Saturday, December 21, 2019

New Law: Prospective tenants can obtain history of gas & electric charges incurred

On December 20, 2019, Senate Bill S3585 became law.

This bill's purpose is that it "[r]equires gas and electric utility companies to make available to any landlord and lessor of residential rental premises, upon the request of a prospective tenant or lessor of a residential unit, information concerning gas and electric charges incurred from prior occupants of the dwelling."

The bill's justification explains that "[p]eople should have the right to inquire from a gas and electric company the amount of the bills being paid for heat and electric service by the prior customer before they move into a residence. They should not have to rely on a landlord or homeowner's word about how much it costs to heat a residence."

This new law, Public Serivce Law section 66-p, is effective on 4/18/2020.

Tuesday, November 12, 2019

No Certificate of Occupancy? No Rent, No Eviction Proceeding

On November 6, 2019, Governor Andrew Cuomo signed Assembly Bill 1646 into law. Assembly Bill 1646 amends the Multiple Residence Law and adds a new Section 302-a. The Multiple Residence Law applies to buildings with three or more units outside New York City.

Effective immediately, the new law prohibits the recovery of rent AND the commencement of an action for possession of a dwelling based on nonpayment of rent if the dwelling or structure occupied for human habitation does not have a certificate of occupancy or is not in compliance with the existing certificate of occupancy pursuant to Multiple Residence Law § 302.

The dwelling may be caused to be vacated for any nuisance or if it is occupied by more families or persons than permitted or is erected or occupied contrary to law. Such dwelling cannot be occupied until it or its occupancy has been made to conform to law.

Apart from a landlord being prohibited from recovering rent and possession of the premises through a nonpayment eviction proceeding, landlords should also be aware that violations may also be fined up to $500 or imprisonment up to a period of one year, or both.

Monday, April 04, 2016

New HUD Guidance - The Intersection of Disparate Impact Discrimination and Criminal Background Checks

Last year, the Supreme Court ruled that disparate impact discrimination claims are cognizable under the Fair Housing Act. For a refresher, read my blog post about the decision here. In sum, landlords may be liable for discrimination if the effect of a facially neutral housing action has a disproportionate impact on a protected class.

Today, the office of general counsel to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development issued a memorandum offering guidance regarding the potential discriminatory effects of taking an adverse housing action against a tenant based upon their criminal history. A link to the memorandum can be found here. The logline for this memorandum is that HUD believes taking an adverse housing action based upon criminal history may constitute discrimination on the basis of race or national origin because of its disparate impact on those protected classes.

The memorandum examines the three-step burden-shifting test a court would analyze in a claim brought by a tenant who alleges they were discriminated based upon their criminal history. The stated purpose of the memorandum is facially neutral, addressing “how the discriminatory effects and disparate treatment methods of proof apply in Fair Housing Act cases in which a housing provider justifies an adverse housing action… based on an individual’s criminal history.” The practical effect of the memorandum, however, is that HUD has armed plaintiff’s attorneys with a new theory of liability that all landlord’s should understand.

The three-step burden-shifting test requires that a plaintiff first prove that the complained of practice has a discriminatory effect. If the plaintiff is successful, the defendant must then prove that the challenged practice has a legally sufficient justification. Finally, if the defendant proves a legally sufficient justification, a plaintiff must then prove that there is a less discriminatory alternative available. The HUD memorandum examines each question and attempts to offer guidance in turn.

Discriminatory Effect

HUD submits that national statistics stand for the conclusion that “[n]ationally, racial and ethnic minorities face disproportionately high rates of arrest and incarceration. Without drawing its own conclusion, HUD posits that these statistics, along with other evidence, could provide sufficient proof for the legal position that taking an adverse housing action, such as refusing to enter or renew a lease based upon criminal history, has a disparate impact on African Americans or Hispanics.

Legally Sufficient Justification

If a plaintiff is successful in proving that an adverse housing action on the basis of criminal history has a discriminatory effect on racial or ethnic minorities, a defendant would then be compelled to provide a legally sufficient justification for the action. In analyzing this factor, HUD acknowledges that “resident safety and protecting property are often considered to be among the fundamental responsibilities of a housing provider”. However, HUD does push back by requiring that a defendant submit evidence supporting the conclusion that a policy of discriminating on the basis of criminal history furthers the stated purpose of protecting residents and property. That is, a landlord cannot blindly rely upon this justification in every situation. HUD suggests that landlords consider each potential tenant on a case by case basis instead of having a blanket policy of refusing to lease to anyone with a criminal history

For example, HUD submits that the existence of a prior arrest, which does not carry a subsequent conviction, “has very little, if any, probative value in showing that he has engaged in any misconduct. An arrest shows nothing more than that someone probably suspected the person apprehended of an offense.” HUD concludes that “because arrest records do not constitute proof of past unlawful conduct… the fact of an arrest is not a reliable basis upon which to assess the potential risk to resident safety or property posed by a particular individual.”

Moving further, HUD submits that even a criminal conviction does not automatically create a legally sufficient justification. “A housing provider that imposes a blanket prohibition on any person with any conviction record – no matter when the conviction occurred, what the underlying conduct entailed, or what the convicted person has done since then – will be unable to meet this burden [of proving a legally sufficient justification].” HUD suggests that a “housing provider must show that its policy accurately distinguishes between criminal conduct that indicates a demonstrable risk to resident safety and/or property and criminal conduct that does not.”

Less Discriminatory Alternative

If a landlord proves a legally sufficient justification for the challenged policy or act, the plaintiff may still prevail by proving that a less discriminatory alternative exists. Here, HUD offers no substantiated guidance but submits that the analysis must be performed on a case by case basis. The only suggestion proffered by HUD is that a landlord may consider delaying a criminal history investigation until after a tenant has already qualified financially.

Conclusion

In the end, HUD has taken an aggressive position that all landlords must remain cognizant of when making housing decisions. When forming a policy of utilizing criminal background checks, a landlord should ensure that their policy is “tailored to serve the housing provider’s substantial, legitimate, nondiscriminatory interest and take[s] into consideration such factors as the type of the crime and the length of the time since conviction.” A landlord who has no evidence that its policy or action is grounded in nondiscriminatory justification will be vulnerable to complaints. 

At the very least, HUD has made it clear that blanket prohibitions on any person with a criminal history will face legal challenges based upon the Supreme Court’s upholding of the disparate impact theory of discrimination.

Tuesday, September 01, 2015

Top 5 Risks For Airbnb Landlords

It may seem homeowners have a money tree at their house. It’s easy, just rent your house for the weekend and the dollars will shake into your bank account. Better yet, companies like Airbnb can facilitate the process and get landlords timely and secure payments, right? Making money is never so easy. Here are five risks of using Airbnb. In each, you need to decide if an Airbnb host is a residential property landlord or instead a hotel operator, in order to understand your exposure.

Read the full article by Andrew Lieb, Esq. here. 

Friday, July 24, 2015

Top 5 Real Estate Lawsuits Aspiring Landlords Need to Know

There are so many get-rich-quick schemes for investing hard-earned savings in real estate to generate a huge passive income through rentals. Wake up--nothing in life is always roses, and not everyone can be Kiyosaki's Rich Dad. This is the list of the Top 5 litigation issues that income-producing property owners face incident to living the landlord's dream.

Full article in The Huffington Post, written by Andrew Lieb, Esq. here. 

Monday, December 29, 2014

Tenants of Properties in Foreclosure May Be in Trouble in 2015

According to the National Low Income Housing Coalition (NLIHC), tenants comprise 40% of the families facing foreclosure.  In the past, many tenants did not know their homes were in foreclosure until they were forced to move out with little to no notice after the foreclosure sale date. Landlords had incentive to keep the foreclosure a secret from their tenants so that they could collect rent in the meantime. As a result, tenants had little recourse and were among the families hurt most by foreclosure.

In 2009, the Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act was enacted in order to protect tenants of properties in foreclosure from being evicted from their homes without due notice. Under this Act, a tenant had the right to stay in the property until the end of his or her lease unless the new owner intended to live in the property. If the property were to be owner-occupied, a 90-day notice was required before the tenant could be evicted. Month-to-month tenants also required 90 days’ notice. No longer were tenants forced to move out within a few days of being given an eviction notice.

The Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act was set to expire on December 31, 2012 but Section 1484 of the Dodd-Frank Act extended it to December 31, 2014. Two bills, S.1761 and H.R. 3543, were introduced in 2013 to permanently extend the Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act. However, neither bill has been passed, and it is unlikely that they will be passed in the next 2 days. It is possible, however, that the bills can be enacted retroactively in 2015.

Without this Act, tenants will not have the same heightened protections during the foreclosure process. It is imperative that a bill is passed to ensure that tenants are given due notice after a foreclosure sale date.