Opportunity Zones are among the hottest of Hot Topics in real estate investment today.  With the December 22, 2017 enactment of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act that added Section 1400Z to the Internal Revenue Code, Opportunity Zones were authorized as a potentially powerful tax deferral and tax exclusion incentive to develop predominantly low-income communities. The tax issues related to Opportunity Zone investment are multilayered and complex, but the essential tax benefits are reasonably straightforward and easy to understand. The potential tax benefits of investment in Opportunity Zones are serving as an exciting foundation for investment in community redevelopment. Opportunity Zones are not, however, the tax and investment panacea some imagine.

STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION

Authorization to create Qualified Opportunity Zones was set forth in new IRC Section 1400Z-1. Special rules for treatment of capital gains invested in Qualified Opportunity Zones are set forth in Section 1400Z-2.

DESIGNATION OF OPPORTUNITY ZONES

As of December 2018, all Qualified Opportunity Zones have been designated. Each Opportunity Zone corresponds to a Census Tract meeting certain low-income guidelines. There is currently no mechanism to create any additional Qualified Opportunity Zones or to expand or modify any existing Qualified Opportunity Zone.  Various mapping tools are available online to enable you to locate Qualified Opportunity Zones and to determine whether any specific property is located within a Qualified Opportunity Zone and therefore eligible for the special tax treatment authorized by IRC 1400Z-2. 

THREE KEY TAX BENEFITS OF OPPORTUNITY ZONE INVESTMENT

The three principal tax benefits of investment in a Qualified Opportunity Zone, assuming the technical rules required by IRC 1400Z-2 and the implementing regulations are satisfied, are as follows:

1. Tax Deferral. Tax on capital gain reinvested in a Qualified Opportunity Zone is deferred until December 31, 2026 (unless the investment is sold or exchanged prior to that time).  See: IRC §1400Z-2 (B). The capital gain subject to deferral is not limited to just capital gains from the sale of real estate, but also includes other capital gains, including those derived from the sale of stock and partnership interests as well.
2. Partial Exclusion of Deferred Gain; 5 Year and 7 Year Holding Periods. A portion of the deferred gain reinvested in a Qualified Opportunity Zone for five years or seven years is excluded from taxation by increasing the tax basis of the investment by a percentage of the reinvested gain. In the case of an investment held for at least five (5) years, the tax basis of the investment is increased by an amount equal to ten percent (10%) of the amount of the deferred gain. In the case of an investment held for at least seven (7) years, the tax basis of the investment is increased by an amount equal to an additional five percent (5%) of the amount of the deferred gain, with the result that after seven (7) years of gain deferral the basis of the property will have increased by an aggregate of fifteen percent (15%) of the deferred gain. Since the recognition date for deferred gain is December 31, 2026 pursuant to IRC §1400Z-2(B), as referred to above, in order to receive the maximum tax benefit the gain must be reinvested in a Qualified Opportunity Zone on or before December 31, 2019 (seven years before December 31, 2026). But still, the tax benefits for the five (5) year holding period remains available for investments made through December 31, 2021. See: IRC §1400Z-2(B).
3. Stepped-Up Basis For Post-Investment Gain; 10 Year Holding Period. Perhaps the most powerful incentive is the special rule for investments held for at least ten (10) years. Pursuant to IRC §1400Z-2(C), in the case of a qualifying investment in a Qualified Opportunity Zone held by the taxpayer for at least 10 years, upon election by the taxpayer the basis of the investment will be stepped-up to its fair market value as of the date the investment is sold or exchanged. The effect of this provision is to exclude all appreciation in the investment from taxation (although it should be noted that the taxpayer would have been obligated to recognize and pay tax on 85% of the initially deferred gain (7-year holding period) or 90% of the initially deferred gain (5-year holding period) as of December 31, 2026).  If there has been substantial appreciation during the holding period of ten or more years, no tax on that gain will be owed if the taxpayer elects to have the tax basis stepped-up to the fair market value of the investment as of the date it is sold or exchanged. See:  IRC §1400Z-2(C).

EXAMPLE:   Suppose QOZ investor sells an asset and realizes a capital gain of $500,000 on October 1, 2019, and then decides to invest that $500,000 in gain in a Qualified Opportunity Zone investment on or before November 1, 2019.   The tax on that gain is deferred until December 31, 2026 or until the investment is sold, whichever first occurs.  If the investment is held at least five years, as of November 1, 2024, the basis in the investment will be increased by 10%, meaning $50,000 of the originally invested $500,000 gain is excluded from taxation. If the investment is held at least another two years (for a total of seven years), as of November 1, 2026 the basis in the investment will be increased by another 5%, meaning an additional $25,000 of the originally invested $500,000 is excluded from taxation.  As of December 31, 2026, the remaining deferred gain of $425,000 ($500,000 minus $50,000 (the 5-year exclusion) and minus $25,000 (the 7-year exclusion) will be realized, with the result that taxes shall be due on $425,000 of the originally deferred gain as of the investor’s tax filing date in 2027.  

Suppose also that in the ten or more years following the initial investment of gain on October 1, 2019 the Qualified Opportunity Zone property in which the investment was made appreciated substantially, with the result that the post-investment gain attributable to the initial $500,000 investment (i.e. the gain after October 1, 2019) is $2,000,000.  Under IRC §1400Z-2(C), at the election of the taxpayer to step-up the basis of the property to fair market value, the $2,000,000 post-investment gain is excluded from taxation.

OPPORTUNITY ZONES AS SOCIAL-IMPACT LEGISLATION

The challenge for Opportunity Zone investing is that it is not enough to simply “invest” and hold in an Opportunity Zone. Instead, either (i) the original use of qualified opportunity zone business property must commence with the investment of qualified opportunity funds, or (ii) if the property is already in use, it must be substantially improved within thirty (30) months.  Generally speaking, “substantial improvement” means improving the property by an amount equal to the cost basis of the property upon acquisition by purchase after December 31, 2017, less any amounts reasonably allocated to land. See: IRC §1400Z-2(d)(2)(D).

Opportunity Zones were designed to inspire social-impact projects. Investment projects in Opportunity Zones are supposed to make a positive difference for the low-income community in which it is situated. The investor seeking the tax advantages of investing in a Qualified Opportunity Zone must put its funds to work to create economic opportunity in the community. Merely investing in an existing property or business is not enough.

SECTION 1031 TAX BENEFIT vs. OPPORTUNITY ZONE TAX BENEFIT

A question I am often asked is whether an Opportunity Zone Investment is better than a tax-deferred exchange pursuant to IRC Section 1031? The short answer is that one is not inherently better than the other, they are just different. It’s like asking whether penicillin is better than a sandwich. Clearly, if you are merely starving a sandwich is better. If you have a bacterial infection, you might be better off using penicillin.  The tax benefits of investing in a Qualified Opportunity Zone are different from the tax benefits offered by a tax deferred exchange of like-kind property pursuant to IRC Section 1031, and the circumstances under which each may be beneficial are different. Each has its place. I will be posting an updated article on IRC Section 1031 tax-deferred exchanges shortly.

OPPORTUNITY ZONES AS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVE

Qualified Opportunity Zone investments in real property require significant capital improvements and the acceptance of a substantial degree of investment risk. The investment risk is that the property must yield acceptable investor returns to sustain the project over a holding period of at least 5 years, but ideally 10 years, and that during the 10-year holding period the property will substantially appreciate in value, making the promised exclusion of gain taxation meaningful.  Because of the substantial investment required to substantially improve property (i.e. double the basis of the existing improvements) and the uncertainty that the primary tax benefit to be derived from appreciation in value over 10 or more years will be achieved, today’s value of property is not automatically enhanced merely because it is located within an Opportunity Zone as some existing owners seem to believe. The project itself must make substantial economic sense on its own – just as if it were not in an Opportunity Zone. The tax benefits available through a Qualified Opportunity Zone investment will not make a poor investment or a marginal investment good. They will only make a good investment better. 

What makes a Qualified Opportunity Zone investment similar to a IRC Section 1031 Exchange is that they both provide for tax deferral. Tax deferral for a Section 1031 investment is potentially without end. Tax deferral for a Qualified Opportunity Zone investment is temporary, but carries with it the additional benefit of potential exclusion of gain from taxation.  Section 1031 exchanges have been part of the Internal Revenue Code for nearly 100 years and are well understood as a tax deferral tool. Qualified Opportunity Zone investments are a brand-new tax mitigation tool authorized in December 2017, with the rules for their use still being written.

The potentially powerful tax incentives offered by Qualified Opportunity Zone investment, coupled with their focus on revitalizing economically distressed communities, is what has made investing in Opportunity Zones one of the hottest topics in real estate.

END*

*NOTE: The foregoing article is for educational purposes and is not intended as tax advice. Taxation of Opportunity Zone investments is highly technical and fact sensitive. Consult with your own tax advisor when applying the subject matter of this article to any specific tax scenario.

Tuesday, September 10, 2019
One North Wacker Conference Center – Chicago (UBS Tower)
and Live Webcast

About this Program

If commercial real estate is being sold and the seller is planning to buy again, the seller should seriously consider a tax-deferred exchange. So long as the closing has not yet occurred, it is not too late. Why pay taxes on sale proceeds when it’s not necessary? Invest those funds as equity instead.

WHAT IS A TAX-DEFERRED EXCHANGE?

Section 1031 of the Internal Revenue Code allows any real estate in the USA held for investment or for use in the taxpayer’s trade or business to be exchanged for other like-kind property without payment of federal income taxes. Most states tax codes provide likewise. There are technical rules for completing the exchange, but it is a straightforward process with clear-cut rules expressly authorized by law.

Taxes that can be deferred include all capital gains taxes, all depreciation recapture taxes, all passive-investment taxes (so called “Obamacare taxes”), and, in most cases, state income taxes. In many circumstances, these taxes can add up to in excess of 30%. Why not reinvest those funds in another like-kind property instead, and continue to receive an investment return on those funds?

HOW IS LIKE-KIND PROPERTY DEFINED?

A concept that is often misunderstood is “like-kind” property. The definition is much broader and simpler that some might expect. Basically, any real estate located in the USA and held for investment or for use in the taxpayer’s trade or business can be exchanged for any other USA real estate held for investment or for use in the taxpayer’s trade or business without paying taxes. That means, for example, an apartment building could be exchanged for a warehouse, retail store, or farm, and vice versa. Vacant land held for investment could be exchanged for a shopping center. An apartment building could be exchanged for an office building. The physical use of the real estate is not what makes it like-kind; rather, all real estate located in the USA is like-kind to all other real estate located in the USA. Likewise, foreign real estate is like-kind to other foreign real estate, but it is not like-kind to USA real estate. The condition is that the real estate being sold must have been held for investment or for use in the taxpayer’s trade or business, and the real estate being acquired must likewise be acquired for investment purposes or for use in the taxpayer’s trade or business.

ARE THERE TIME CONSTRAINTS?  

At the time of closing, the taxpayer does not need to know exactly what property will replace the property being sold. The taxpayer has 45 days to identify potential replacement property, and up to 180 days after closing to acquire the replacement property. A key, however, is that the selling taxpayer cannot come into physical or constructive possession of the sale proceeds during the exchange period. To satisfy this condition, the seller will designate a qualified intermediary to hold the funds under an exchange trust agreement. This can be done quickly, often within a day or two before closing if necessary. Although the seller/taxpayer does not have the right to access the funds during the exchange period, the seller/taxpayer does have the right to direct the qualified intermediary to apply the funds toward the taxpayer’s purchase of any replacement property which is identified by the taxpayer during the 45-day identification period.

For all taxes to be deferred, the entire sale proceeds of the real estate being sold must be used to acquire the replacement property. For this purpose, “sale proceeds” includes all cash received at closing and any mortgage indebtedness that was paid off.

ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES

There are many advantages and not many disadvantages to structuring a sale as a tax-deferred exchange. The rules are technical but not very difficult to apply. It has virtually no impact on the buyer and provides extraordinary benefits to the seller.  

For a broker, an exchange provides a direct lead-in to the next transaction, with an opportunity to broker the purchase of replacement property of equal or greater value that must close within 180 days.

Our tax code provides this benefit; it is up to real estate professionals to take advantage.

REOMAC to Host Top CRE Leaders in Panel Discussion 

July 19, 2018 at River Forest Country Club, Elmhurst, Illinois

I am pleased to be participating in the REOMAC a panel discussion on adaptive reuse of big box properties and other underutilized commercial and industrial real estate on July 19, 2018 at River Forest Country Club, in Elmhurst, Illinois.  Joining me on the panel will be Jim Terrell of A&G Realty, former COO of Sear Holdings Real Estate Portfolio, and Scott Henry of Celadon Holdings, a leading developer of affordable housing in the Greater Chicago region.  As many of you know, my practice focuses heavily on commercial real estate due diligence and the practical design and implementation of redevelopment plans from inception through entitlement, acquisition, financing, closing, and beyond. The panel will be moderated by Mark Paniccia, Vice President of Business and Commercial Lending for TREO Asset Services–East Coast Division and Managing Member of Signal Asset Management LLC.

Adaptive Reuse of Big Box Properties, and more:

A vital concern in many communities is the challenge of filling underutilized and vacant commercial and industrial space. Whether from recent store closings, bankruptcies, or a still-lagging recovery from the Great Recession, finding solutions for adaptive reuse of commercial and industrial real estate is a top priority.

What do we do with this property? How can it be put to productive use? What are other communities and property owners doing? How do we know the property can be used as planned? What steps must be taken to get from where we are today to the fully functioning project we envision? How do we pay for it? Will municipal governments help with redevelopment by abating or sharing taxes, or providing development funds to private developers though so-called “public-private partnerships”?

Want answers?

Gain insights on adaptive reuse from CRE thought-leaders on the the front line by attending this REOMAC panel discussion. The public is invited to attend.

Register Here

REOMAC Members: $70 / Nonmembers: $95

Two Things You Need to Know

As my readers know, I often represent real estate investors. When I draft a real estate contract I strive to make each provision absolutely clear in its meaning, and try to have it serve as a workable road map to closing.  Occasionally a client will draft a real estate contract on its own (or have a broker draft it), and sign it without my review or input. The client will then send it to me “to close the transaction“.  Though I counsel clients that this can be a remarkably risky practice, some clients . . . being clients . . .  do as they wish and ignore my advice. Such is life.

When faced with closing a transaction governed by a real estate contract I did not have a hand in preparing, I do my best.  It is usually not a complete disaster, but there are often misunderstandings because of provisions that are not entirely clear.

There are also situations where a provision in a real estate contract may be legally sufficient, but the seller and/or its attorney simply don’t understand the actual meaning of the provision.  With a clearer provision the misunderstanding could be avoided, but the legal ramifications of certain provisions still are what they are, rather that what some imagine them to be. The following are two examples I have run into in the last week that I believe deserve comment and explanation:

NO MORTGAGE CONTINGENCY:     Contrary to the understanding by some Seller’s attorneys and their clients, the fact that a real estate contract does not include a mortgage contingency – and may even expressly state that the transaction is not contingent upon the Buyer obtaining a mortgage – does not mean that the Buyer is not obtaining a loan and using mortgage financing.  It simply means that the Buyer’s obligation to proceed to closing under the real estate contract is not contingent upon the Buyer obtaining a mortgage loan.

Many investor Buyers have strong relationships with their lender. They know what their lender requires, and know that the property they are acquiring will qualify as collateral for a mortgage loan from their lender. Consequently, they do not make obtaining a mortgage a contingency to closing in the real estate contract. Be that as it may, the Buyer may still obtain a mortgage loan, and may fund the property purchase using loan proceeds.

This is the practical equivalent to the situation where a real estate contract does contain a mortgage contingency, but the contingency has been satisfied because the Buyer has been approved for a mortgage loan. At that point the contingency expires and the contract is no longer subject to a mortgage contingency. The Buyer will still be closing using its lender and the proceeds of its mortgage loan. Probably no one disputes that.

Likewise, in a real estate contract where there is no mortgage contingency from the beginning, the absence of a mortgage contingency does not, without more, imply at all that there will be no mortgage lender.  If the parties intend to provide that a contract is to be a cash transaction with no lender, that should be expressly provided in the real estate contract. Otherwise, the mere absence of a mortgage contingency does not mean there will be no lender – it simply means the Buyer is taking the legal and financial risk that a mortgage will be obtained.

2.   AN “AS IS” CLAUSE DOES NOT MEAN NO INSPECTION:  As with the absence of a mortgage contingency clause, as discussed in point 1 above, there seems to be some confusion about what an “AS IS” provision in a real estate contract means.

It has recently been suggested to me by Seller’s counsel that since the Buyer is purchasing property in “AS IS” condition that there is no need for the Buyer to have an inspection period with the right to inspect the condition of the property. To the contrary, where a Buyer has agreed to acquire property in AS IS condition, it is absolutely vital for the Buyer to have an opportunity to inspect the property, with the right to terminate the transaction if the condition of the property is materially worse than the Buyer expected. The AS IS provision in a real estate contract simply means that the Buyer does not expect the Seller to make any repairs to the property, or expect the Seller to provide closing credits for defective conditions in the property, and that the Buyer will not come back to the Buyer after closing seeking recourse for undisclosed defects.

Having a provision in an real estate contract providing for an inspection period during which the Buyer can thoroughly inspect the property and terminate the contract within that period if the property is physically deficient is not at all inconsistent with a provision that the Buyer is agreeing to acquire the property in AS IS condition.  The need to inspect is a matter of due diligence for the Buyer. If the Buyer inspects the property (or fails to inspect the property) and does not  exercise its right to terminate within the inspection period provided in the real estate contract, then the Buyer is bound to close regardless of the condition of the property – with the possible exception of additional damage occurring to the property after the contract date, or at least after expiration of the inspection period.

These are simple points, but they are misunderstood more frequently than one would hope or expect. To avoid needless misunderstandings, careful and meticulous drafting is a solution.  But still . . . this is not rocket science.

Thanks for listening. . .

Kymn

NEW – COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE BOOT CAMP- April 24, 2018- presented by the Illinois Institute for Continuing Legal Education

I’m pleased to tell you about a terrific CLE program I’ll be speaking at and moderating: the IICLE® Commercial Real Estate Boot Camp, which will be held on Tuesday, April 24, 2018, at the One North Wacker Conference Center (UBS TOWER) in Chicago .  A SPRINGFIELD SIMULCAST and LIVE WEBCAST will also be available.

This program is a “boot camp” for commercial real estate transactions, intended as intensive, fast-paced, basic training. The goal is to provide practical knowledge fundamental to everyday commercial real estate transactions practice, including basic forms. This course is designed for (i) lawyers with one to seven years of experience handling commercial real estate transactions; and (ii) lawyers at any level of experience seeking to learn the fundamentals of everyday commercial real estate transactions.

In this program you will learn about (a) client intake and engagement letters; (b) drafting/reviewing a letter of intent to purchase; (c) drafting the purchase and sale agreement; (d) obtaining and reviewing a suitable ALTA survey; (e) commercial title insurance with typically required commercial endorsements; (f) three common types of escrows; (g) types of deeds typical to commercial real estate transactions; (h) required governmental notices; (i) due diligence in preparing for closing; (j) documenting party authority; (k) the basic opinion of borrowers’ counsel; and (l) common closing issues.

You can view the full e-brochure here: PROGRAM BROCHURE

Check out the full agenda (the program provides 6 hours of CLE, including 1 hour of Professional Responsibility) and register now at http://www.iicle.com/crebc18 or call IICLE® at 800-252-8062.

As you may know, there is a shortage of commercial real estate attorneys with mid-level experience. Not because attorneys are not interested, but because during the commercial real estate crash that began with the collapse of Lehman Bros. on September 15, 2008, and the following Great Recession with its lingering effects on the commercial real estate market until just the past two or three years, there were few commercial real estate transactions upon which new attorneys could gain experience. Times have changed. Commercial real estate practice is booming. We need more attorneys who actually know what they’re doing. This Commercial Real Estate Boot Camp is a great start!

I hope to see you on April 24th!

WHEN EXERCISING REAL ESTATE OPTIONS – Strict Compliance is Your Only Option

Options affecting real estate are commonly found in two circumstances: options to purchase real estate and options to extend the term of a lease. A recent decision by the Illinois Appellate Court filed February 28, 2018 in the case of  Michigan Wacker Associates, LLC v. Casdan, 2018 IL App (1st) 171222 concerns an option to extend the term of a lease, but its reasoning is instructive for real estate options generally. Strict compliance is required.

The Option to Extend Lease

In Casdan, the lease had an initial term ending December 31, 2011, but provided for two additional options to extend the lease, stating as follows:

“Tenant shall have the option to extend the term of this Lease for two additional five (5) year periods . . . the First Extension Option (expiring December 31, 2016) . . . and the Second Extension Option, (expiring December 31, 2021). The option to renew shall be exercised with respect to the entire Demised Premises only and shall be exerciseable by Tenant delivering the Extension Notice to Landlord, in the case of the First Extension Option, on or prior to January 1, 2011, and in the case of the Second Extension Option, on or prior to January 1, 2016, in all cases, time being of the essence.”

Required Notice

The lease also contained a provision governing notices that provided, in part, that “Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Lease, any . . . notices . . . or other communications given or required to be given under this Lease . . . shall be deemed sufficiently given or rendered only if in writing . . . sent by registered or certified mail (return receipt requested) addressed to the Landlord at Landlord’s address set forth in this Lease . . .; or to such other address as . . . Landlord . . . may designate as its new address for such purpose by notice given to the other in accordance with the provisions of this Article 27.”

The lease also provided that landlord could waive strict performance of a lease term only by executing a written instrument to that effect and, even then, the waiver of one breach would not result in the waiver of subsequent breaches.

Imprecise Exercise

On November 9, 2010, the tenant, through its attorney, sent a written extension notice to extend the lease term for the First Extension Option via Federal Express rather than via registered mail or certified mail as provided under the express terms of the lease. Landlord did not dispute the notice and treated the notice as having effectively extended the term of the lease to December 31, 2016.

Subsequently, the tenant claims to have effectively exercised the Second Extension Option to extend the term to December 31, 2021. On August 16, 2012, tenant, again through its attorney, emailed landlord raising matters tenant “would like to discuss”, and included the following statement: “We are now in the first of two (2) five (5) year options. Tenant would like to exercise the second option now, so we don’t have to do this again as soon. . .”

There were additional proposals and suggestions in the email that create issues concerning the definiteness of the purported exercise of the Second Extension Option, but for purposes of the court’s ruling in Casdan, it is unnecessary to address that concern.

Claim That Landlord Received Actual Notice

Tenant’s position was that through various conversations and emails occurring prior to January 1, 2016, landlord received actual notice of tenant’s exercise of the Second Extension Option. Before and after January 1, 2016, tenant made clear to landlord that tenant wanted to remain in the Demised Premises, make various leasehold improvements, and renew the lease. Further, because the landlord had accepted notice of exercise of the First Extension Option by means other than as strictly provided under the terms of the lease, landlord could not insist upon strict adherence to the terms of the lease for exercise of the Second Extension Option.

The Trial Court Ruled in Tenant’s Favor

Following a hearing, the trial court entered summary judgment in tenant’s favor, finding that the August 16, 2012 email was a clear and unambiguous exercise of the Second Extension Option.

The Appellate Court Reversed

On appeal, the trial court’s summary judgment ruling was reviewed de novo, with the appellate court noting that “we review the court’s judgment, not its reasoning,” and reversed the trial court’s judgment in favor of tenant.

The Appellate Court’s Reasoning

In explaining its decision, the Casdan court stated as follows (omissions from text are not noted):

Our supreme court’s seminal decision in Dikeman v. Sunday Creek Coal Co., 184 Ill. 546 (1900), remains the leading authority on option matters. The contractually mandated time for performance is generally an essential term of a contract. Unless that term is waived, an option is lost due to untimeliness. Discussing the nature of the option before it, Dikeman stated “[the] agreement was purely a privilege given to the lessee without any corresponding right or privilege of the lessor, and the only stipulation was that the right should be exercised at a certain time.” Id. at 551.

Since Dikeman, courts have generally required strict compliance with options. See T.C.T. Building Partnership v. Tandy Corp. 323 Ill. App. 3d, 114, 115, 119-120 (2001) (treating the method for exercising an option as a condition precedent requiring strict compliance). Strict compliance is dictated not only by precedent, but by the needs of commercial transactions and fairness. Options to cancel or extend commercial leases are invaluable to a lessee, and a lessor generally does not receive consideration for the lessor’s agreement to be bound by an exercise of the option. Thus, a lessor may insist on a writing to further certainty as the lessor foregoes other opportunities to lease the space.

Consequently, actual or oral notice is insufficient to exercise an option where a party has failed to provide timely notice. Furthermore, cases finding actual notice to be sufficient outside the options context have no bearing on notice in option cases.

In addition, tenant does not dispute that it failed to strictly comply with the method of notice prescribed by the lease. Instead, tenant argues that actual notice is a sufficient substitute for the lease requirements and landlord waived strict compliance with the requisite method of notice.

Dikeman and its progeny clearly defeat tenant’s assertion that actual notice is sufficient.

See Casdan, 2018 IL App (1st) 171222, ¶¶ 33-37.

Key Lesson Learned . . .

One of the key lessons to be learned from Michigan Wacker Associates, LLC v. Casdan is that exercising an option – any option – is not a casual undertaking. Strict compliance with the method of exercise specified in the option instrument is essential. It must be specific, certain, and unconditional. It must also be timely, and the method of notice of exercise must strictly adhere to the notice requirements of the option instrument. Even actual notice of an attempted exercise of an option will not suffice if strict compliance with the method of exercise is not observed.

Thanks for listening . . .

Kymn

Lawyers are like most other business professionals. We want your business and we want your referrals – we just don’t always know the best way to ask for either.

Take me for example. I’ve been handling commercial real estate transactions and business deals for nearly 40 years. I’ve loved (almost) every day of it, and I look forward to many more (knock on wood). My clients appreciate my insights and value the guidance I provide. Other attorneys respect what I do, and brokers and CPAs like working with me because I strive for practical solutions to efficiently and effectively get the job done. I pay close attention to learn my clients’ business objectives, then work diligently and negotiate hard to get my clients what they expect – when they expect it. That’s what lawyers do. Or at least what all lawyers should do. For any client hiring a lawyer, what else is there?  Achieving client objectives and getting the deal closed on time is why lawyers exist. Deals fail, for sure, but we can never be the reason they fail. Deals that fail are a waste of everyone’s time and money. Getting the deal done, if it can be done, is our value proposition.

Deals are my lifeblood – my passion. They’re why I wake up every morning and get out of bed. I love this stuff. I can’t explain exactly why that is – it just is.  Why do musicians practice their instruments and play? Why do scratch golfers golf? Why do competitive skiers ski?  It’s our passion. We don’t know exactly why – it comes from within. And we always need more.

Commercial real estate deals always come first for me, but in every commercial real estate project is a business. They go hand in hand. My preference for a good real estate deal over a good business deal is a matter of only slight degree. There’s not really a number one and a number two. It’s more like #1 and #1A.

So what’s the problem?

The problem is, a lot of people don’t know I’m available to represent them. I write books and articles on commercial real estate. I give seminars on how to structure and close business and real estate transactions. I publish a commercial real estate and business blog.  People think I’m busy, or that I only handle huge deals. The truth is, I am busy – but never too busy to handle another deal, large or small. In the words of the late, great Lucille Ball: “If you want something done, ask a busy person to do it.” We all loved Lucy!

The most shocking question I get from prospective clients is: “Would you (I) be willing to handle my (their) next business or commercial real estate deal?”  Are they kidding? My answer is always an emphatic “yes”! It’s my passion. It’s my love.  It’s what I live for.

To be sure, I’m a business professional, and I charge for what I do, but if you have a commercial real estate deal or business deal, and need representation, I’m in. Never be shy about calling me. We’ll work out the economics. The range of deals I handle is extraordinarily diverse. For a taste, look at my blog Harp-OnThis.com, or check out my latest book, Illinois Commercial Real Estate on Amazon.com or in your local public library. I love this stuff. I need this stuff. Of course I want to represent you. When can we get started?

So back to my initial point:  I do want your business and your business referrals. Like many other business professionals, I just don’t know the best way to go about asking for it. What do you suggest?

A mistake lawyers make is treating all clients the same. It’s a mistake shared by other professions as well. They’re not all the same. The issues clients face, and the solutions they deserve, are as varied as life itself.

With the rise of technology and the commoditization of legal services, nuance can be lost. Precise solutions to particular problems may be neglected while cookie-cutter boilerplate is offered as a cheap substitute. Not that all boilerplate and technology is bad – they can provide huge benefits when applied correctly. But just as a mass-produced size 9 leather dress shoe may be ideal for some, it is of little comfort or use to an athlete with a size 10 foot.

Automation is a cost-saver, no doubt. But is it a reasonable substitute for thoughtful analysis and tailor-made solutions to client specific problems?

There may be areas of life where commoditized legal services represent a reasonable tradeoff. Perhaps consumers engaged in everyday transactions are adequately-served by inexpensive one-size fits all solutions. Even a consumer buying a home – often touted as the largest single transaction most consumers will make in their lifetime – may be well-served by inexpensive boilerplate solutions on most occasions. In the world of consumer transactions and consumer finance, there is a protective overlay of consumer protection laws and oversight that will often fill in the gaps left by a one-size fits all approach.

But what about most commercial transactions? Buying or starting a business? Investing in commercial or industrial real estate? Raising capital from third parties? Entering into a partnership agreement or limited liability company operating agreement for a commercial venture where someone else is in control, and uses or controls your money – or where you use or control someone else’s money? Are these circumstances where one-size solutions and documentation make sense?

How do you protect yourself if something goes wrong? Experience shows something can always go wrong. And when things go wrong in a commercial transaction, expensive lawsuits often follow.

Business people consider themselves to be intelligent, reasonable beings. When they invest in a business or real estate project they expect it will succeed. If they thought otherwise, they would not make the investment. That would be foolish, and they know for certain that they’re not foolish. If it fails, they conclude it had be someone’s fault – but it certainly wasn’t theirs.  They must have been duped. Information must have been withheld. They must have been lied to or cheated.  The other party must at least be incompetent if not downright crooked.

You may laugh, but that’s often how it happens. You may be one hundred percent competent and above-board. You may have understood and discussed the risks to the point where you are certain that your partners or investors understand the risks as well – but if you’re the promoter of the failed business or investment, or you’re in charge of making management decisions – you should expect to find yourself staring down the business end of a double-barreled lawsuit claiming the loss is your fault – even if you lost money as well, and even if nothing you did or could have done resulted in the loss. Changing economic circumstances, business and lifestyle trends, and other factors far beyond your control may be the reason for the loss, but you will be blamed. How do to protect yourself?

Suppose you’re on the other side. What if you’re the investor or partner asked to invest? What do you look for? What do you require? How do you protect yourself?

Clients are not all the same. Commercial transactions are not all the same. The risks and benefits of each investment and business venture are not all the same. The solutions and documentation of each transaction cannot, therefore, be all the same.

If clients are engaged in serious business, serious attention is required. Both the attorney and the client need to understand this. Once a deal goes bad, it’s too late to go back and redo what should have been done at the outset.

Will doing it right up front cost more?

Probably.

Will it be worth it if things go poorly?

You bet.

Should clients buy a size 9 shoe for their size 10 foot?

Thanks for listening. . .

Kymn

COMMERCIAL LEASES AND THE LAW OF ELECTRONIC TRANSACTIONS

By Guest Authors: David P. Resnick and Seth Corthell

Most commercial leases are forged by a deliberate, organic process that includes face-to-face meetings, telephone calls and written correspondence between the landlord, the tenant and their respective agents, culminating in a written contract that historically was required to be signed by hand by both parties.  Over the past 20 years, the rise of email as a generally-accepted medium of business communication has prompted the law to allow certain contracts, including leases, to be entered into electronically, without a handwritten signature.  Progress has been made in this respect, both by statute and the common law; however, tweaking a centuries-old legal axiom takes time.  This article addresses recent developments and the present state of the law with respect to commercial leasing and electronic media.

The Historical Basics 

Under the law, all leases are contracts.  As such, leases require certain basic legal components to be enforceable.  Every contract must state definite terms and include a grant of consideration and mutuality of agreement and obligation between competent parties.  In order to be valid, contracts require offer and acceptance by the parties.

In addition, almost all leases are subject to the statute of frauds.  Patterned after an English statute enacted in 1677, the statute of frauds is the legal doctrine that certain contracts – including leases and other contracts affecting any interest in land – be contained in a written, signed instrument.  Certain exceptions commonly apply, notably to short term (i.e. less than one year) leases.  But prior to recent developments, the law was relatively straightforward:  Real estate contracts must be in writing to be enforceable.

The Culture Evolves

In light of this precedential legal backdrop, many questions arise from our increasing reliance on email in commercial leasing.  For instance, can an email or series of emails constitute a written lease?  Can an electronic signature on a lease bind a party in the same way as a handwritten signature?  Short of an ink-signed paper document, what might constitute a binding lease?

In 1999, in response to questions like these and calls for clarity on the use of electronic media for business transactions, the Uniform Law Commissioners promulgated the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA).  The UETA was the first effort to create a uniform set of laws with respect to electronic commerce, and 47 states have adopted it since its release.

Section 7 of the UETA contains the fundamental rules of the act:

• A record or signature may not be denied legal effect or enforceability solely because it is in electronic form.
• A contract may not be denied legal effect or enforceability solely because an electronic record was used in its formation.
• If a law requires a record to be in writing, an electronic record satisfies the law.
• If a law requires a signature, an electronic signature satisfies the law.
•  

In short, the objective of the UETA is to establish that in the context of applicable transactions, electronic signatures are the equivalent of manual signatures and electronic records are the equivalent of hard copies.  A stated “paradigm” of the UETA is that it applies only to parties to transactions who have each acquiesced by some means to be bound electronically.  Moreover, under the UETA a party may always refuse to be bound by electronic correspondence.

Application

While case law is plentiful with respect to electronic communications and application of the UETA, the common law is still evolving as to the application of these topics in the context of  commercial leases and other real estate contracts.  A few notable cases highlight the complexities and pitfalls inherent in adjudging the enforceability of contracts without historically reliable handwritten signatures.

Though not ultimately related to a lease, St. Johns Holdings, LLC v. Two Electronics, No. 16 MISC 000090, 2016 WL 1460477 at *3 (Mass. L.C. April 14, 2016) is an example of a court’s willingness to expand its interpretation of the statute of frauds in the context of electronic communications.  In that case, the plaintiff, St. John’s Holdings (SJH) contacted the broker of defendant Two Electronics (T-E), first seeking to lease T-E’s property and later seeking to purchase the property instead.

Following a period in which the parties exchanged and negotiated draft purchase agreements through their respective agents, T-E’s broker sent a text message to SJH’s real estate agent stating that T-E wanted SJH to sign the purchase agreement first and provide the deposit check before T-E would finalize it.  At the end of the message, T-E’s broker (bearing authority for T-E) wrote his name.  The same day, SJH’s agent went to the office of T-E’s broker and delivered the check and the signed agreement.  Unbeknownst to SJH or its agent, T-E had a competing offer from a third party, and had accepted the other offer the same day it received the signed agreement from SJH.  T-E then refused to execute the agreement with SJH.

SJH subsequently brought an action for a declaratory judgment that the contract was executed, and for specific performance of the contract.  T-E moved to dismiss, arguing that SJH could not allege that T-E ever provided a signed writing compliant with the statute of frauds grounds.  SJH argued that the broker’s name at the bottom of the text message from T-E’s agent was sufficient to satisfy the statute of frauds.

The court ultimately agreed with SJH, finding that the text message in question, read in conjunction with the previous negotiation communications between the parties satisfied the requirements of the statute of frauds.  In coming to this conclusion, the court noted the evolution of business practices and the prevalence of electronic communications in business transactions.  The court analogized the broker’s name at the bottom of the text message to an electronic signature at the bottom of an email and deemed it sufficient to satisfy the statute of frauds’ signature requirement.

Similarly, Crestwood Shops, LLC v. Hikene, 197 S.W.3d 641, 644 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006), demonstrates the significance courts will apply to email correspondence under the UETA in adjudicating the validity of contractual offer and acceptance.  In that case, tenant Hikene sought to lease larger retail space in a shopping center from the landlord, Crestwood Shops, LLC.  The parties entered into a five-year lease, but following commencement of the term, Hikene identified several problems with the new space, including mold on the premises, a defective HVAC system, and foundation issues.  As Hikene made preparations to renovate the new space, she brought the issues with the property to Crestwood’s attention.

Communications between Hikene and Crestwood became increasingly contentious, and both parties thereafter agreed to correspond in writing only.  Following her continued dissatisfaction with Crestwood’s response to the space issues, she stated in an email her desire to terminate the lease if the problems were not corrected by a date certain.  The next day, Crestwood responded that they accepted Hikene’s request to be released from the lease as of the stated date.

Hikene sought a declaratory judgment that the lease was not terminated, arguing that she did not agree to conduct her business transactions electronically and that she did not intend her email to be an offer to terminate the lease.  The court disagreed, ruling that the parties consented to the conduct of business through email, and that Hikene’s email constituted an offer to terminate that satisfied the statute of frauds.  In coming to its decision, the Court noted that the UETA instructs fact-finders to consider the “context and surrounding circumstances, including the parties’ conduct.”  Following this directive, the court determined that Hikene’s March 17 email insisting that the parties communicate through email demonstrated her willingness to transact business through email.

Clarity Is Key

As the legal regimes associated with electronic communications evolve, a variety of measures are available to parties to a lease in order to avoid being bound without intent.  For instance, landlords and tenants transacting electronically may ensure that a lease proposal or draft lease document is not exploited as an offer by including the following common language in each cover transmittal:  “Nothing herein shall be deemed or construed to be an offer by [sender], and [sender] shall not be bound unless and until such time as all parties have delivered fully-executed documents.”  And persons transmitting via email should always be aware that their electronic signature may be deemed to have the same legal effect as their handwritten signature.

As a general proposition, if a party wishes to confirm that it will not be bound by electronic correspondence, it is always wise to do so in writing.  The requirement in the UETA that a party must agree to conduct business electronically need not be established by an explicit statement; rather, it may be satisfied by an interpretation of context and conduct.  To be clear, parties to a lease are advised to reduce to writing their consent, or withdrawal of consent, to be bound in this manner.

Not long ago, commercial leases would take weeks to negotiate, draft and finalize.  Like virtually every other area of commerce, technology has streamlined the leasing process such that today, leasing transactions are completed with lightning speed.  Leasing professionals should be mindful of the hazards of doing business electronically and should consider the legal consequences of every email.

David P. Resnick is a member of the Board of Editors of the Commercial Leasing Law & Strategy newsletter.  He is a Shareholder at Robbins, Salomon & Patt, Ltd. in Chicago, concentrating his practice in commercial real estate development and finance.  Seth Corthell is an attorney based in Chicago, Illinois.

Reprinted with permission from the May 2017 edition of the Commercial Leasing Law & Strategy ©2017 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All rights reserved. Further duplication without permission is prohibited, contact 877-257-3382 or reprints@alm.com.