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

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

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

 2016 Updat

Are you planning to purchase, finance, develop or redevelop any of the following types of commercial real estate in the USA?

• Shopping Center
• Office building
• Large Multifamily/Apartments/Condominium Project
• Sports and/or Entertainment Venue
• Mixed-Use Commercial-Residential-Office
• Parking Lot/Parking Garage
• Retail Store
• Lifestyle or Enclosed Mall
• Restaurant/Banquet Facility
• Intermodal logistics/distribution facility
• Medical Building
• Gas Station
• Manufacturing facility
• Pharmacy
• Special Use facility
• Air Rights parcel
• Subterranean parcel
• Infrastructure improvements
• Other commercial (non-single family, non-farm) property

A KEY element of successfully investing in commercial real estate is performing an adequate Due Diligence Investigation prior to becoming legally bound to acquire or finance the property.  Conducting a Due Diligence Investigation is important not just to enable you to walk away from the transaction, if necessary, but even more importantly to enable you to discover obstacles and opportunities presented by the property that can be addressed prior to closing, to enable the transaction to proceed in a manner most beneficial to your overall objective. An adequate Due Diligence Investigation will assure awareness of all material facts relevant to the intended use or disposition of the property after closing. This is a critical point. The ultimate objective is not just to get to Closing – but rather to confirm that the property can be used or developed as intended after Closing.

The following checklists – while not all-inclusive – will help you conduct a focused and meaningful Due Diligence Investigation.

This is Part 2 of a multi-part series of articles discussing the duties, rights and remedies of commercial real estate tenants in Illinois. Part 1, entitled “Getting It Right” discussed the importance of clarity in lease drafting, and the potential for unintended leasehold easements for parking, and other uses.

In March 2015, the Illinois Institute for Continuing Legal Education (“IICLE”) published its 2015 Edition practice handbook entitled: Commercial Landlord-Tenant Practice. To provide best-practice guidance to all Illinois attorneys, IICLE recruits experienced attorneys with relevant knowledge to write each handbook chapter. For the 2015 Edition, IICLE asked R. Kymn Harp and Catherine A. Cooke to write the chapter entitled Tenant’s Duties, Rights and Remedies. We were, of course, pleased to oblige. Although each of us represent commercial landlords at least as often as we represent commercial tenants, a clear understanding of the duties, rights and remedies of commercial real estate tenants is critical when representing either side of the commercial lease transaction.

The following is an excerpt (slightly edited) from our chapter in the 2015 Edition. We hope you find this excerpt, and the excerpts that will follow, informative and useful. Feel free to contact IICLE  directly to purchase the entire volume.

The COVENANT OF QUIET ENJOYMENT
What Is It? — General Principles

It has long been the law in Illinois that a covenant of quite enjoyment is implied in all lease agreements. Blue Cross Ass’n v. 666 N. Lake Shore Drive Associates, 100 Ill.App.3d 647, 427 N.E.2d 270, 273, 56 Ill.Dec. 290 (1st Dist. 1981); 64 East Walton, Inc. v. Chicago Title & Trust Co., 69 Ill.App.3d 635, 387 N.E.2d 751, 755, 25 Ill.Dec. 875 (1st Dist. 1979); Berrington v. Casey, 78 Ill. 317, 319 (1875); Wade v. Halligan, 16 Ill. 507, 511 (1855).

A covenant of quiet enjoyment “promises that the tenant shall enjoy the possession of the premises in peace and without disturbance.” [Emphasis in original.] Checkers, Simon & Rosner v. Lurie Co., No. 87 C 5405, 1987 WL 18930 at *3 (N.D.Ill. Oct. 20, 1987). This does not mean, however, that no breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment may be found in a leasehold without a finding that the lessor intended to deprive the lessee of possession. Blue Cross Ass’n, supra, 427 N.E.2d at 27. It simply means that a tenant must actually be in possession of the premises to claim a breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment. If the tenant has already vacated the premises before the disturbance has commenced, no breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment occurs. Checkers, Simon & Rosner, supra, 1987 WL 18930 at *3.

An implied covenant of quiet enjoyment includes, “absent a lease clause to the contrary, the right to be free of the lessors’ intentional interference with full enjoyment and use of the leased premises.” Infinity Broadcasting Corporation of Illinois v. Prudential Insurance Company of America, No. 86 C 4207, 1987 WL 6624 at *5 (N.D.Ill. Feb. 9, 1987), aff’d, 869 F.2d 1073 (7th Cir. 1989), quoting American Dairy Queen Corp. v. Brown-Port Co., 621 F.2d 255, 258 (7th Cir. 1980).

If the landlord breaches the covenant of quiet enjoyment, the lessee may remain in possession and claim damages for breach of lease. In such case, the measure of damages is the difference between the rental value of the premises in light of the breached covenant of quiet enjoyment and the rent that the tenant agreed to pay under the lease, together with such special damages as may have been directly and necessarily incurred by the tenant in consequence of the landlord’s wrongful act. 64 East Walton, supra, 387 N.E.2d at 755.

Although Illinois cases defining the precise scope of a covenant of quiet enjoyment are rare, BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY, pp. 1248 – 1249 (6th ed. 1993) defines “quiet enjoyment” in connection with the landlord-tenant relationship as “the tenant’s right to freedom from serious interferences with his or her tenancy. Manzaro v. McCann, 401 Mass. 880, 519 N.E.2d 1337, 1341. (Ringing for more than one day of smoke alarms in an apartment building could be sufficient interference with the tenants’ quite enjoyment of leased premises to justify relief against the landlord.).”

HOW THE COVENANT OF QUIET ENJOYMENT MAY APPLY— CASE LAW

In Blue Cross Ass’n v. 666 N. Lake Shore Drive Associates, 100 Ill.App.3d 647, 427 N.E.2d 270, 273, 56 Ill.Dec. 290 (1st Dist. 1981), the First District Appellate Court discussed the covenant of quiet enjoyment in the lease as granting the tenant a right of quiet and peaceful possession and enjoyment of the whole premises and equated a breach of quiet enjoyment under a lease to a private nuisance. “A private nuisance in a leasehold situation is ‘an individual wrong arising from an unreasonable, unwarranted or unlawful use of one’s property producing such material annoyance, inconvenience, discomfort, or hurt that the law will presume a consequent damage.’ ” Id., quoting Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. LaSalle National Bank, 77 Ill.App.3d 478, 395 N.E.2d 1193, 1198, 32 Ill.Dec. 812 (1st Dist. 1979).

The tenant had entered into a five-year lease on August 22, 1978, with a five-year renewal option, for approximately 53,000 square feet of the

In March 2015, the Illinois Institute for Continuing Legal Education (“IICLE”) published its 2015 Edition practice handbook entitled:  Commercial Landlord-Tenant Practice. To provide best-practice guidance to all Illinois attorneys, IICLE recruits experienced attorneys with relevant knowledge to write each handbook chapter. For the current edition, IICLE asked R. Kymn Harp and Catherine Cooke of Robbins, Salomon & Patt, Ltd., Chicago, Illinois, to write the chapter entitled Tenant’s Duties, Rights and Remedies. We were, of course, pleased to oblige. Although each of us represent commercial landlords at least as often as we represent commercial tenants, a clear understanding of the duties, rights and remedies of commercial real estate tenants is critical when representing either side of the commercial lease transaction.

The following is an excerpt (slightly edited) from our chapter, Tenant’s Duties, Rights and Remedies appearing in the 2015 Edition of IICLE Commercial Landlord-Tenant Practice. We hope you find this excerpt, and the excerpts that will follow, informative and useful. Feel free to contact IICLE directly to purchase the entire volume.

How Commercial Lease Issues Commonly Arise – Getting it Right

Commercial real estate leases, like virtually all documents and agreements relating to commercial real estate transactions and interests, are, to a very large extent, consistent only in their variety. In commercial real estate practice, there are few, if any, “standard form” documents or agreements. To be sure, there are provisions in commercial real estate leases that any experienced practitioner would expect to see, and there are some generally applicable legal concepts that apply, but the variety of issues that may arise — and the language used in each commercial lease — will directly and materially impact the “duties, rights, and remedies” of a tenant under any commercial lease.

The best answer to most questions about what are the rights, duties, and remedies of a tenant under a commercial real estate lease is “It depends.” What does it depend on? It depends primarily on what the parties to the lease — the landlord and tenant — intended, as (presumably) reflected by the express terms and conditions of the lease. However, two common challenges frequently exist, and they apply equally to commercial tenants and commercial landlords. They are (a) poorly written lease provisions that do not clearly and definitively set forth the intention of the landlord and tenant in a way that cannot reasonably be misunderstood and (b) inclusion of perceived “standard boilerplate” provisions in a lease without fully understanding their legal or practical affect on the leased premises, the parties, and the greater project of which the leased premises may be a part. When the intent of the parties is not abundantly clear, a court may find the answer implied by the facts and circumstances.

GENERAL LEASE PRINCIPLES AND RULES OF CONSTRUCTION

A “lease” is generally described as a contract for exclusive possession of land and improvements for a term of years or other duration, usually for a specified rent or other compensation. Urban Investment & Development Co. v. Maurice L. Rothschild & Co., 25 Ill.App.3d 546, 323 N.E.2d 588, 592 (1st Dist. 1975); Feeley v. Michigan Avenue National Bank, 141 Ill.App.3d 187, 490 N.E.2d 15, 18, 141 Ill.Dec. 187 (1st Dist. 1986).

In determining the duties, rights, and remedies of a tenant under a commercial lease in Illinois, the general rules of contract construction will apply. Walgreen Co. v. American National Bank & Trust Company of Chicago, 4 Ill.App.3d 549, 281 N.E.2d 462, 465 (1st Dist. 1972); Feeley, supra, 490 N.E.2d at 18; Chicago Title & Trust Co. v. Southland Corp., 111 Ill.App.3d 67, 443 N.E.2d 294, 297, 66 Ill.Dec. 611 (1st Dist. 1982). Interpretation of a lease is a question of law when the terms are plain and unambiguous. Madigan Bros. v. Melrose Shopping Center Co., 123 Ill.App.3d 851, 463 N.E.2d 824, 828, 79 Ill.Dec. 270 (1st Dist. 1984).

“An ambiguous contract is one capable of being understood in more senses than one; an agreement obscure in meaning, through indefiniteness of expression, or having a double meaning.” Advertising Checking Bureau, Inc. v. Canal-Randolph Associates, 101 Ill.App.3d 140, 427 N.E.2d 1039, 1042, 56 Ill.Dec. 634 (1st Dist. 1991), quoting First National Bank of Chicago v. Victor Comptometer Corp., 123 Ill.App.2d 335, 260 N.E.2d 99, 102 (1st Dist. 1970). However, the mere fact that the parties to a lease “dispute” the meaning of a lease provision and assign conflicting interpretations does not render the provision “ambiguous.” McGann v. Murry, 75 Ill.App.3d 697, 393 N.E.2d 1339, 1342 – 1343, 31 Ill.Dec. 32 (3d Dist. 1979); St. George Chicago, Inc. v. George J. Murges & Associates, Ltd., 296 Ill.App.3d 285, 695 N.E.2d 503, 506 – 507, 230 Ill.Dec. 1013 (1st Dist. 1998); Ford v. Dovenmuehle Mortgage, Inc., 273 Ill.App.3d 240, 651 N.E.2d 751, 745 – 755, 209 Ill.Dec. 573 (1st Dist. 1995). Whether ambiguity exists is a question of law for the court. Advertising Checking Bureau, supra, 427 N.E.2d at 1042; Pioneer Trust & Savings Bank v. Lucky Stores, Inc., 91 Ill.App.3d 573, 414 N.E.2d 1152, 1154, 47 Ill.Dec. 36 (1st Dist. 1980).

It is well-settled in Illinois that, when construing a written lease, the court must give words their commonly accepted meaning and must construe every part with reference to all other portions of the lease “so that every part may stand, if possible, and no part of it, either in words or sentences, shall be regarded as superfluous or void if it can be prevented.” Kokenes v. Cities Service Oil Co., 24 Ill.App.3d 483, 321 N.E.2d 338, 340 (1st Dist. 1974), quoting Szulerecki v. Oppenheimer, 283 Ill. 525, 119 N.E. 643, 646 (1918). See also Southland, supra, 443 N.E.2d at 297.

In construing a lease, the instrument is to be considered as a whole and the primary object is to derive the intent of the parties. However, a contract must be enforced as written, and when the terms of a lease are clear and unambiguous, they will be given their natural and ordinary meaning. Gerardi v. Vaal, 169 Ill.App.3d 818, 523 N.E.2d 1327, 1331, 120 Ill.Dec. 416 (3d Dist. 1988).

The foregoing sounds pretty straightforward, but unless attorneys and their clients draft leases with a comprehensive understanding of the interplay between particularly drafted provisions and every other part of the lease — including so-called “standard boilerplate” provisions — they may find themselves surprised by what they have “agreed to.”

PRACTICE POINTER

 Drafting a commercial real estate lease is similar to drafting any other commercial document, except that the meaning and intent of contractual lease provisions are colored by an extensive body of underlying real property law that has developed over the centuries.

A commercial real estate lease should say what the parties mean and mean what it says. Words have meaning; phrases have meaning; each provision has meaning. The interplay of words, phrases, and all provisions in a lease will help determine the meaning of each other word, phrase, or provision. See Kokenes, supra, 321 N.E.2d at 340; Szulerecki, supra, 119 N.E. at 646.

PRACTICE POINTER

 Be sure the words and phrases you use mean what your client believes they mean before proceeding.

 If there are provisions of a commercial real estate lease you do not fully understand — including provisions you believe are “standard boilerplate” provisions — you need to learn what they mean and how they affect other parts of the lease, and your client’s rights, duties and remedies, before advising your client to proceed.

The following discussion highlights some areas in which the rights, duties, and remedies of the commercial real estate tenant (and, by mirror image, the landlord) appear not to have been what one or the other party thought they were.

I read once that if you took all the lawyers in the world and laid them end to end along the equator — it would be a good idea to leave them there.

That’s what I read. What do you suppose that means?

I have written before about the need to exercise due diligence when purchasing commercial real estate. The need to investigate, before Closing, every significant aspect of the property you are acquiring. The importance of evaluating each commercial real estate transaction with a mindset that once the Closing occurs, there is no going back. The Seller has your money and is gone. If post-Closing problems arise, Seller’s contract representations and warranties will, at best, mean expensive litigation. CAVEAT EMPTOR! [“Let the buyer beware!”]

Paying extra attention at the beginning of a commercial real estate transaction to “get it right” can save tens of thousands of dollars versus when a deal goes bad. It’s like the old Fram® oil filter slogan during the 1970’s: “You can pay me now – or pay me later”. In commercial real estate, however, “later” may be too late.

Buying commercial real estate is NOT like buying a home. It is not. It is not. It is NOT.

In Illinois, and many other states, virtually every residential real estate closing requires a lawyer for the buyer and a lawyer for the seller. This is probably smart. It is good consumer protection.

The “problem” this causes, however, is that every lawyer handling residential real estate transactions considers himself or herself a “real estate lawyer”, capable of handling any real estate transaction that may arise.

We learned in law school that there are only two kinds of property: real estate and personal property. Therefore – we intuit – if we are competent to handle a residential real estate closing, we must be competent to handle a commercial real estate closing. They are each “real estate”, right?

ANSWER: Yes, they are each real estate. No, they are not the same.

The legal issues and risks in a commercial real estate transaction are remarkably different from the legal issues and risks in a residential real estate transaction. Most are not even remotely similar. Attorneys concentrating their practice handling residential real estate closings do not face the same issues as attorneys concentrating their practice in commercial real estate.

It is a matter of experience. You either know the issues and risks inherent in commercial real estate transactions – and know how to deal with them – or you don’t.

A key point to remember is that the myriad consumer protection laws that protect residential home buyers have no application to – and provide no protection for – buyers of commercial real estate.

Competent commercial real estate practice requires focused and concentrated investigation of all issues material to the transaction by someone who knows what they are looking for. In short, it requires the experienced exercise of due diligence.

I admit – the exercise of due diligence is not cheap, but the failure to exercise due diligence can create a financial disaster for the commercial real estate investor. Don’t be “penny wise and pound foolish”. If you are buying a home, hire an attorney who regularly represents home buyers. If you are buying commercial real estate, hire an attorney who regularly represents commercial real estate buyers.

Years ago I stopped handling residential real estate transactions. As an active commercial real estate attorney, even I hire residential real estate counsel for my own home purchases. I do that because residential real estate practice is fundamentally different from commercial real estate.

Maybe I do harp on the need for competent counsel experienced in commercial real estate transactions. I genuinely believe it. I believe it is essential. I believe if you are going to invest in commercial real estate, you must apply your critical thinking skills and be smart.

POP QUIZ:

Here’s a simple test of YOUR critical thinking skills:

Please read the following Scenarios and answer the questions TRUE or FALSE:

GUEST BLOG BY DAVID RESNICK of ROBBINS, SALOMON & PATT, LTD.

When considering a lease, tenants are usually focused on the location, size and quality of the leased space, and perform some minimal diligence on the landlord and property manager to ensure fair treatment over the course of the term. Landlords have a more difficult task,however. A prospective tenant, and most importantly, that tenant’s ability to pay rent, is often unknown to the landlord. In recent years, real estate professionals have witnessed expansion in the array of users of commercial space and at the same time, property owners have been compelled to seek out new types of tenants. Increasing numbers of start-ups and new ventures are seeking to lease space, many of which are backed by various types of equity financing. As a result of these changes, landlords should be particularly vigilant in understanding how their tenants make money, as well as the financial identities of the parties backstopping the obligations of those tenants.

Analyze Tenant Credit

Landlords should always analyze tenant credit in the context of the lease. After all, the success of leased real estate, as well as the property owner’s ability to borrow against that asset, is dependent upon the stability of its tenants. While rent is the primary economic factor in any lease transaction, other factors such as term (including rights of extension), area of the premises (including rights of expansion and rights of first refusal on additional space) and the scope of tenant improvements create the platform upon which a tenant’s credit can be evaluated. For example, substantial build-out (regardless of who pays for it) that may inhibit the re-letting the space following a default. Therefore, landlords should be mindful of the tenant’s capacity to pay its construction obligations, which capacity is usually encapsulated in the tenant’s credit and litigation history.

A proper underwriting of a tenant’s credit requires a thorough understanding of that tenant’s business. A prudent landlord will pay attention not only to the tenant’s sources of revenue, but to the market upon which the tenant relies and the business plan upon which the tenant charts its future success. What are the contours of the business model? Is the revenue sustainable? What is the plan for future growth? Has the tenant gone through restructuring or been forced to lay off personnel? Landlords can avoid doing business with troubled or unstable tenants by performing background, lien and litigation searches on the tenant parties as part of the underwriting process. This kind of diligence can usually be completed in a short time-frame at a reasonable cost, and may save substantial time and money if the landlord is forced to evict a tenant it should have known to be at increased risk of default.

Technology has given rise to new products which enhance the process of underwriting tenant credit. For example, the Chicago firm (RE)Meter has created the first “credit score” for commercial tenants, which captures and synthesizes proposed lease transaction terms and basic tenant financial information with exclusive data maintained by a number of federal agencies, including the U.S. Census Bureau, the Department of Labor and the Internal Revenue Service ((RE)Meter is the first firm to access IRS information in this context). The end product, called the TIL Report, can be completed in a mere 15 minutes and offers landlords a sector- and market-specific analysis of its prospective tenants, reflecting a number of detailed metrics including growth trends, profitability and rent per employee. Innovations like these have altered the landscape of tenant underwriting and will enable landlords to make more prudent decisions when marketing space and assessing the risk of potential tenants.

Tenant Credit Enhancements

Conventionally, several mechanisms exist to enhance the credit of a prospective tenant who fails on its own to meet the underwriting criteria of the landlord. The first and foremost of these is the security deposit, which is posted by the tenant in the form of cash or letter of credit and held by the landlord for all or part of the duration of the lease. The deposit may be applied by the landlord towards unpaid amounts payable under the lease like rent, proportionate common area expenses or taxes, or reimbursement of amounts expended to repair damage to the premises. A stronger credit tenant may receive the benefit of a return of all or part of the deposit held by landlord over time, provided the tenant has not defaulted.

Security Deposits

While cash security deposits have historically been the industry standard in commercial leasing, landlords are increasingly requiring letter of credit security deposits instead. For many landlords, the benefits of cash on hand are overshadowed by the security of an obligation issued by a third-party bank, particularly when the landlord is able to draw on the letter of credit following a default without notice to or consent by the tenant. Letters of credit also may bear advantages to the landlord following a bankruptcy by the tenant, as the obligation of the issuing bank to pay on the letter of credit is independent of the tenant’s obligations under the lease. However, some courts have found that letter of credit security deposits are part of the tenant’s bankruptcy estate and thus subject to the cap on a landlord’s claim for damages under Section 502(b)(6) of the United States Bankruptcy Code.

Lease Guaranties

Guaranties are a common alternative for securing the credit of a commercial tenant. In the context of commercial leasing, a guaranty is a legally enforceable undertaking by a third party to fulfill the payment or performance obligations of the tenant under a lease. A guaranty may be given by an entity, such as a corporate parent or affiliate, or an individual, such as a majority owner or other key principal of the tenant. To most effectively backstop the credit of the tenant, a guaranty should be a guaranty of payment as opposed to a guaranty of performance. This distinction ensures that the landlord will not be forced to exhaust its remedies against the tenant before pursuing enforcement of the guaranty. Rather, the landlord may pursue the tenant and guarantor simultaneously for unpaid amounts under the lease.

Once a landlord has determined that it will require a guaranty to secure the tenant’s obligations under the lease, what should the landlord look for in evaluating potential guarantors? The most straightforward factor, notwithstanding whether the proposed guarantor is an individual or an entity, is cash on hand and other liquid assets. In satisfaction of the landlord’s inquiry, an guarantors may produce income tax returns, bank statements, financial statements, balance sheets or other evidence of personal holdings. The review process for publicly traded companies is simplified in that pertinent financial information is publicly available. Of course, testing for liquidity has its flaws. There exists no iron-clad protection against fraud, and disclosures only present a snapshot of a party’s credit at the time of the test as opposed to a forecast of future liquidity and stability. A review of tenant and guarantor financial information, as well as credit reports for collections, pledging of material assets or opening of new lines of credit, should be performed at regular intervals throughout the term of the lease.

Financial Disclosure Challenges

Financial disclosures may be problematic or some privately-held concerns. Particularly in the modern era of start-up firms financed by venture capital and private equity interests, tenants and proposed guarantors may be limited by investor confidentiality. With this in mind, parties to a lease should clarify in the lease or guaranty the form of any future disclosures to be made. Tenants and guarantors may resist delivering full-fledged audited financial statements in favor of reduced balance sheets or nominal form of profit and loss statement. Depending on the profile of the market and building, landlords may be willing to accept less than full disclosure if the statements deliver a reasonable picture of the financial health of the party delivering them.

Tenant Stability and Performance Incentives

As lease term and the disclosure provisions are negotiated, tenants may push the landlord for a variety of concessions that effectively incentivize and reward tenant stability. Perhaps the most common examples of this request are limitations on the security deposit, pledged assets or the liability under or the term of the guaranty. Limitations like these can take a variety of forms, from a fixed term to a cap on the guarantor’s liability based upon a fixed dollar-figure or factor of rent payable under the lease, to an automatic reduction of either the security deposit or the cap on the guarantor’s liability over time. In each instance, the landlord should be cognizant of the hurdles the tenant party must overcome to receive the benefit of these limitations, none more important than the uninterrupted timely payment of rent without default.

Tenant Credit is a Key to Successful Lease Performance

In light of the crises our industry has withstood in recent years, a landlord’s exuberance in welcoming new tenants is understandable. But in the current era of increasing economic growth, landlords should adopt a cautious approach in understanding and monitoring the business of their tenants. No landlord can predict with certainty the success or failure of its tenants; however, perhaps now more than ever, a thorough and complete examination of tenant credit is essential to the financial success of any leased real estate.

“The best time to plant a tree was twenty years ago.

        The second best time is today.”

Chinese proverb

For over 35 years, I have represented commercial real estate investors, developers and business owners. Most of that time has been spent helping them acquire, finance, expand, develop, manage and grow their assets and businesses. For the past 5 to 6 years, as we have struggled through the Great Recession, a huge amount of my time has been spent helping clients keep their assets.

Growing up, I was steeped in the practical view that it is not so much what you acquire that counts, but, rather, what you keep. My parents and grandparents were not in the real estate business to make others wealthy. They were playing real life Monopoly®. They played to win. It was less about money for money’s sake than it was

Commercial Real Estate Lending:  What You Don’t Know Can Hurt You!

If there is anything commercial real estate lenders have learned during the collapse of the commercial real estate market over the past five or so years, it would be the danger of “lending blind”.  Commercial real estate lending without fully understanding the project is a prescription for disaster. An original version of this article was first published in 2005.  It is eerie how prophetic the warning signs were. Surely lenders have learned. . . .