Of Course We Can Sue Them . . . But Can We Hold Them Liable?

No one knows everything. It’s a simple fact of life. Often, businesses turn to other businesses and professionals to obtain needed information. The range of commercial information providers assisting business owners and real estate investors, developers and lenders gather and analyse information is vast.

The question is: Do we have a legal right to rely on the information they provide? What if the information is wrong? What if we rely on that incorrect information and suffer a loss? Is the information provider liable?

It could be anything from hiring an appraiser to appraise a property to support a commercial loan; hiring a lab to analyze nutrition and caloric content of food products; or engaging a financial consultant to evaluate a company’s assets and liabilities as part of a business acquisition or merger; or seeking out a lending institution to provide information regarding the creditworthiness of a potential borrower. We might hire a structural engineer to evaluate the structural integrity of a building or bridge or other structure; or engage a surveyor to determine the scope and size of a parcel of land, or the location of easements and improvements located on the property, or the existence of rights of way to access the property; or we might retain a person or business holding itself out as a “due diligence” expert to investigate the essential facts necessary to enable us to determine whether to proceed with a particular transaction or project. The list of commercial information providers we rely upon to conduct our affairs is nearly endless.

Another simple fact of life is that people can and do make mistakes. They misinterpret information. Misstate the facts. Fail to discover and disclose all material information necessary to make information they have provided sufficient to enable informed action and decision-making.

What happens when your information provider gives you bad information and you suffer a loss as a result? Do you have any recourse? What if

This is the second installment of a three-part series on Section 1031 like-kind exchanges. Part 1 explained WHY you should consider use of a Section 1031 like-kind exchange when selling commercial or investment real property. Part 2 covers the key rules for HOW to implement a Section 1031 like-kind exchange. Part 3 will cover special issues applicable to a Section 1031 like-kind exchange when a Tenant-In-Common [TIC] interest is being acquired.

KEY RULES FOR SECTION 1031 EXCHANGES

The following is an outline of key rules applicable to Section 1031 exchanges. Become familiar with these rules. Unless you intend to completely cash out of real estate investing, a Section 1031 exchange may work to your benefit. If you intend to keep investing in real estate or using real estate in your trade or business, a Section 1031 exchange will maximize the capital you have available to reinvest.

Key Elements of a Section 1031 Exchange*

What is Section 1031?

Section 1031 refers to Section 1031 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.

What does it do?

Section 1031 permits a taxpayer (the Exchangor) to dispose of certain real estate and personal property and replace it with like-kind property without being required to pay taxes on the transaction.

What property qualifies?

To qualify for a Section 1031 exchange, the property being disposed of (the Relinquished Property) must have been used in the Exchangor’s trade or business and/or must have been held for investment purposes. The property being acquired (the Replacement Property) must likewise be acquired for use in the Exchangor’s trade or business or for investment.

What property is considered like-kind?

For real estate, to be like-kind means simply that real estate must be exchanged for real estate. The rules related to personal property are significantly more complex. Personal property is any property that is not real estate.

Real estate exchanges are fairly straightforward. A warehouse may be exchanged for another warehouse or for any other qualifying real estate including, for instance, a factory building, office building, shopping center, single-tenant store, parking garage, or even a parcel of vacant ground so long as it qualifies as being acquired for use in the Exchangor’s trade or business or is to be held for investment. This is not a difficult test to pass. Similarly, a qualifying parcel of vacant ground or a shopping center or office building or factory or other parcels of investment real estate may be exchanged for any other qualifying real estate investment.

Personal property exchanges are not so straightforward. For personal property, the property must be substantially similar and of the same type or class. For example: a car can be exchanged for another car; and a bull can be exchanged for another bull; and a cow can be exchanged for another cow; but, a bull may not be exchanged for either a cow or a car.

Although personal property exchange rules are substantially more technical and complicated than real property exchange rules, generally speaking, depreciable tangible personal property held for productive use in a trade or business can be exchanged for other depreciable tangible personal property held for productive use in a trade or business so long as they fall within the same NAICS classification code.

For instance, Limited Service Restaurants such as fast food restaurants, pizza delivery, sandwich shops, etc. fall within 2012 NAICS Code 722513. Accordingly, the assets of one can be exchanged for the assets of the other under Section 1031. But, note that the NAICS Code for a bar, tavern or nightclub is 722410, and the NAICS Code for a full service restaurant is 722511, so an exchange of assets of either of these for the assets of the other, or the assets of a Limited Service Restaurant (even though otherwise physically identical), may not likely be considered “like kind”.

The point, for purposes of this post, is that exchange rules for personal property are substantially more complex than exchange rules for real property. Accordingly, if you are exchanging personal property – either in conjunction with an exchange of real property or purely as a personal property exchange – great care must be taken to comply with the personal property exchange rules to receive the benefits of a tax deferred exchange under Section 1031.

What property is excluded?

Some types of property are expressly excluded from tax deferred exchange treatment by statute, rule or regulation The following types of property do not qualify for aSection 1031 exchange: stocks, bonds, partnership interests, limited liability company interests, personal residences, stocks in trade or inventory, and certain other intangible property.

Are there timing issues?

Section 1031 exchanges can be simultaneous, but they are not required to be. In fact, most exchanges made pursuant to Section 1031 are not simultaneous. There are, however, strict timing rules that apply tonon-simultaneous exchanges and strict rules prohibiting access to funds.

What are the time limits?

The Replacement Property or properties must be identified, in writing, not later than forty-five days after the Relinquished Property is transferred (the Identification Period). The Replacement Property or properties must be acquired not later than the earlier of (i) 180 days after the Relinquished Property was transferred, or (ii) the due date for the Exchangor’s tax return, including any extensions (the Acquisition Period). The Identification Period is included within the Acquisition Period.

How many Replacement Properties may be identified?

There is no fixed limit to the number of Replacement Properties that may be identified, but there are two primary rules that apply: (1) the Three-Property Rule, and (2) the 200% Rule.

1. The Three-Property Rule allows you to identify up to three (3) properties as potential Replacement Properties, regardless of value. You need not acquire all three properties, but as of the end of the Identification Period, not more than three properties may be identified. This is the most commonly used identification rule.

2. The 200% Rule allows you to identify any number of potential Replacement Properties so long as the aggregate value of all identified properties does not exceed 200% of the value of the Relinquished Property. You need not acquire all identified properties.

Generally, if you identify more properties than permitted, you are treated as if you have not identified any properties. However, there is one more rule that might save the day. The 95% Rule allows you to identify any number of potential Replacement Properties, regardless of value, so long as you actually acquire within the Acquisition Period at least 95% of the value of all properties identified. Use of the 95% Rule is rare, and is generally considered more a safety valve rule than an intentionally used exchange rule

Must all exchange proceeds be used?

There is no requirement that all proceeds received upon sale of the Relinquished Property be used to acquire the Replacement Property. Any exchange proceeds not used, however, are taxable.

What constitutes exchange proceeds?

Exchange proceeds means the net sale price of the Relinquished Property, including all net equity and the amount of any mortgage encumbering the Relinquished Property, whether paid off at closing or assumed by the purchaser. It is not sufficient to merely reinvest the net equity received upon sale. The purchase price of the Replacement Property must equal or exceed the aggregate of the net equity received upon sale of the RelinquishedProperty plus any mortgage encumbering the Relinquished Property at the time of the sale closing.

Example: If the Relinquished Property is encumbered by a $700,000 mortgage and is sold for $1 million as part of a Section 1031 exchange transaction, to defer all taxes, the purchase price of the Replacement Property must be at least $1 million, not merely $300,000.

When can the Exchangor obtain access to unused proceeds?

Proceeds from sale of the Relinquished Property may be accessed only when the exchange is completed, fails, or expires. If no potential Replacement Properties are identified within the Identification Period, the exchange fails, and the Exchangor may receive the funds. Those funds will, however, be taxed in the year received. But note: If a mortgage was paid off at the Closing of the Relinquished Property, and the amount of the mortgage was greater than the tax basis of the Relinquished Property, the amount paid to satisfy the mortgage in excess of the tax basis of the Relinquished Property is taxable in the year of Closing of the Relinquished Property.

If all properties identified within the Identification Period are acquired within the Acquisition Period, the exchange is completed, and any remaining funds may be received by the Exchangor. Those remaining funds are taxable. If less than all identified properties are acquired, but the Acquisition Period expires, all remaining funds may be received by the Exchangor, but are taxable.

Conclusion:

These are the basics. As tax rates rise, Section 1031 exchanges become increasingly valuable.

A Section 1031 exchange is not a new and exotic tax shelter scheme. Tax deferred exchanges of like-kind property have been recognized by the Internal Revenue Service as a valid tax deferral strategy since the early 1920s. The structure and effect of a Section 1031 exchange were specifically authorized by Congress by enacting Section 1031 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and the Internal Revenue Service has promulgated extensive regulations for its implementation.

Use Section 1031 to your advantage, but be sure to strictly comply with the Section 1031 rules.

* Special Thanks to my tax partner, James M. Mainzer, for consulting on this post.

_________________________________

As required by the Internal Revenue Service under Circular 230, you are advised that any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this article is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed in this article.

The law is clear.  The so-called “Land Patent” defense does NOT work.

This is not earth shattering news, but it is a reminder that defenses to mortgage foreclosure actions must be well grounded in fact and warranted by existing law or a good faith argument for the extension, modification or reversal of existing law. In simple terms – defenses must at least be legally plausible.

One of the more bizarre defenses raised by a small group of defendants who refer to themselves as “sovereign citizens” is a so-called “land patent” defense. It does not work – at least not in Illinois.

In a long, unusual, and fairly cumbersome opinion filed by the Illinois Appellate Court on September 23, 2013, in the case of Parkway Bank and Trust Company v. Victor Korzen and Tomas Zanzola, 2013 IL App (1st) 130380, the First District Appellate Court addressed “a number of tactics a small number of debtors use to both delay the ultimate resolution of cases against them and to use the legal system for improper purposes. Some people might classify those who engage in these tactics as “sovereign citizens”, but regardless of nomenclature, their methods are not only counterproductive, but detrimental to the efficient and fair administration of justice. A recent New York Times article noted the FBI has labeled the strategy as “paper terrorism”.

I am a strong proponent of raising every viable defense to a mortgage foreclosure when representing a defendant. There are many defects in mortgage loan files, and many more defects arising from faulty loan administration, defective securitization of syndicated loans, and breaches of public policy and black letter law by lenders. Some lenders have fraudulently manufactured and forged missing assignment documents and other documents to fill material document gaps. There are legitimate defenses that can be raised and valid lender liability claims that can be pursued in many circumstances if the situation warrants and the resources are available to mount a strong defense and counter-attack.

That said, not every so-called “defense” is legitimate, and some are just plain goofy.

Among the illegitimate “defenses” is the claimed “land patent” defense. It simply does not work. It is not well grounded in law, and there is no good faith argument for the extension, modification or reversal of existing law that courts in Illinois – or probably anywhere in the United States – are likely to recognize as having been pursued in “good faith”. As a consequence, if you raise the “land patent” defense in defense of an Illinois mortgage foreclosure action, you are going to lose, be sanctioned, and perhaps be prosecuted for committing a Class 4 Felony.

In this short post, I do not intend to give an in-depth description of the (faulty) theory behind the land patent defense, but I will direct your attention to paragraph 72 et seq. of the Parkway Bank v. Korzen case, referred to above. Read this case if you are thinking about using the land patent contrivance as a “defense”, particularly in an Illinois mortgage foreclosure action. It does not work.

The Time to Decide – Commercial Real Estate Litigation

A sage once said, “The time to worry about where the ball will drop is before the wheel is spun”.  He was speaking about roulette, of course, but the wisdom of these words has much broader application.  The point is, worry about the outcome before you place the bet, when you can still do something about it.

Commercial litigation, especially commercial real estate litigation, is in some respects like roulette. Once your lawsuit is filed, the wheel is spinning.  Unlike roulette, you may still have a measure of control over the outcome — but you are in it until the ball drops. 

In CRE litigation there is seldom an insurance company prepared to write a check.  There is a substantial risk the case will proceed to trial.  There is no guaranty you will collect anything – especially if payment of money is not the relief you seek. Consequently, there is very little chance your attorney will accept your commercial dispute on a contingent fee basis. A third of nothing is still nothing. 

Lawyers handling commercial litigation are not your partners. Commercial litigators charge by the hour.  Except in rare cases where you can negotiate a hybrid fee arrangement, you will assume the entire financial risk – not your lawyer. Your lawyer is serving as your paid professional advocate; a hired gun, so to speak.

As long as you are willing and able to pay your lawyer to apply his or her skill and training to your cause, your lawyer is bound to represent you with zeal and vigor. If you do not pay, you should expect your lawyer to stop work.  The fact that the practice of law is a profession does not make it a charitable enterprise. It is both a profession and a business.  There is no moral or ethical imperative for a lawyer to work without pay while advocating a commercial dispute.  CRE litigation is business litigation – and the business being advanced is yours.

I am not a big fan of commercial litigation. It is expensive for my clients and distracts them from their core business.  It is in their core business where they make money.  It is because of their core business that I am their lawyer.  Still, if you are going to litigate, then commit to litigate. Do not file a lawsuit unless you intend to see it through and win.

If you know anything about law firm profitability, it may surprise you to hear me say I am not a huge fan of litigation. Lawsuits can be very profitable for lawyers. Lawsuits are labor intensive and can take on a life of their own.  Huge legal fees can be run up in a hurry.  If that is how you determine to spend your money then, by all means, call me.  My law firm has an outstanding group of litigators.  In commercial litigation, including CRE litigation, we combine our transactional knowledge with litigation prowess and are unsurpassed. I just think you ought to make an informed and seriously calculated decision before you decide to spend your money in this way.

It is virtually impossible to predict with accuracy how much a lawsuit will cost.  Typically, it will cost much more than you imagine. This is because, unlike a business or real estate transaction you can choose to walk away from if it ceases to make economic sense, lawsuits, once filed, are not so easy to escape.  It’s like choosing to dance with an 800 pound gorilla.  As the joke goes, “When do you stop?  When the gorilla decides to stop.”  Once you have filed a lawsuit, or have taken a position in a dispute that will lead to your adversary filing a lawsuit, you have reached the dance floor and may very well find yourself cheek to cheek with an 800 pound gorilla.

Don’t get me wrong.  There are times when litigation is necessary and appropriate.  There are times when an adversary is so brazenly interfering with your business or trampling on your rights and interests that the benefits of litigation will far exceed your costs.  There are times when litigation is your only reasonable choice. 

In making the decision to proceed, however, understand the tangible and intangible costs.  Attorneys’ fees may run into tens of thousands of dollars, and in a complicated case perhaps even into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. The litigation may also distract you from your core business and subject you to significant emotional strain and sleepless nights.  Do not underestimate these add-on intangible costs. 

If you are going to litigate, be sure to hire a  lawyer experienced in the type of litigation you intend to  pursue.  Litigation strategy is based on game theory.  Each move you make must anticipate your adversary’s next several moves. Your strategy and its implementation must be designed to win and be agile enough to adapt to changing circumstances if your adversary moves forward in an unanticipated way.  Knowledge is power.

Part of what makes litigation emotionally draining is a lack of understanding about how the process works.  It is not as mysterious as clients sometimes seem to believe.

The bones of litigation are this:  You and your adversary are in disagreement. You are convinced your position is superior.  Your adversary is convinced its position is superior. You are unable to reach a compromise that works for you both.  Filing a lawsuit is a decision to let someone else decide. 

The litigation process is a process of gathering useful information to support your position and to undermine your opponent’s position. Your adversary is engaged in the same process. Some of this information is applicable law. Much of the information is supporting facts. Ultimately, you will each present your compiled information to an independent decision maker.  A judge or jury will decide.

If you are going to litigate, the decision to do so should be based upon a sober determination of the benefits likely to be achieved, the costs of obtaining those benefits, and your likelihood of success.  You may have the greatest case in the world; your lawyer may tell you it will be a “slam dunk”; but if it is going to cost you more than you reasonably expect to gain – measuring both tangible and intangible costs – at least consider the choice of not proceeding. The decision to proceed or not to proceed is yours. It is very much a business decision.  

In making the decision to litigate, use the same skills of economic analysis you use to make real estate investment decisions. If you know it will cost you $2,000,000 to develop and market a project, but your likely return is only $1,500,000, would you proceed?  If your disputed claim is for $50,000 but it will cost you $60,000 to $100,000 to collect, should you proceed?  The answer may depend upon other factors as well but, all else being equal, the rational economic choice is obvious.

Too often lawsuits are filed as an emotional response to a perceived slight rather than being based upon an objective determination that the lawsuit is in your best economic interest. Do not let elevated testosterone levels get in the way of making a rational economic decision.  The  lawsuit is likely to continue long after your passions have faded.  By that time, you may be wrapped in the arms of that 800 pound gorilla.  If you have not made the decision to litigate based upon legitimate and dispassionate commercial considerations, you may find that your only way out is to settle on highly unfavorable terms.  This will not help you prosper.

A common mistake clients make is to assume that if a dispute is over only $10,000 to $50,000, the attorneys’ fees for pursuing or defending the case will be proportionately less than if the lawsuit involved $100,000 to $1,000,000.  This is not necessarily so.  The amount of time it takes to prove your case has very little to do with the amount in dispute.  The facts and issues, and the response of your adversary, determine the amount of time involved.  Since commercial litigation is typically billed by the hour, more time means higher attorneys’ fees regardless of the amount in dispute.  This reality should be taken into consideration when deciding to file suit, and likewise when considering an offer of settlement.

Some protection may be provided by the documents if they provide for the successful party to recover attorneys’ fees and costs from the unsuccessful party. But note: (i) you had better be sure you will be the successful party, or you may end up paying your adversary’s attorneys’ fees as well as your own; and (ii) you should consider whether a judgment against this particular defendant is likely to be collected.  If the defendant is on the verge of bankruptcy, or otherwise insolvent, obtaining a judgment that includes all of your attorneys’ fees will do you little good.  You will have just spent more money that will  not be collectible.  As the saying goes: “When you find yourself in a hole – stop digging.”

Remember.  The commercial dispute forming the basis of your lawsuit is yours, not your attorney’s.  Your attorney’s business is to represent you as your skilled professional advocate. Attorneys are bound to zealously advocate for your success, but they can not guaranty success and collection.

Deciding to file a lawsuit in a commercial dispute should be like deciding to get a kidney transplant.  It should be a decision that is not entered into lightly, and should be made only if the benefits to be obtained are greater than the burdens the procedure will entail. If you decide on a new kidney and go under the knife, be prepared to see it through. If, after the procedure has begun and your kidney has been removed, you change you mind and decide against a transplant, your decision is a bit too late.  The time to make that decision was before you got on the operating table.

I am not saying you should never file a lawsuit.  Each circumstance merits its own evaluation. What I am saying is that the time to decide is before the suit is filed.  Once filed, be prepared to do what must be done to win.  It is too late to un-spin the wheel.

                                                                                    Thanks for listening,

                                                                                                 Kymn

Employment Restrictive Covenants

The issue of enforceability of employment restrictive covenants comes up often in business, including the business of commercial real estate.

A common scenario is as follows:  A person goes to work for a company and is required to sign a Noncompetition and Nonsolicitation Agreement. Typically, it will say something like “during the term of employment, and for a period of one year after termination of employment, the employee will not compete with or solicit any customer or vendor of the employer.”  Sometimes the Noncompetition/Nonsolicitation Agreement is required to be signed as a condition of being hired. Other times the employer will tell an employee who is already employed that signing the Noncompetition/Nonsolicitation Agreement is a condition to continued employment.

Are Employment Noncompetition/Nonsolicitation Agreements enforceable in Illinois?

As a general proposition, Noncompetition/Nonsolicitation Agreements are enforceable in Illinois, as long as they satisfy a three-pronged test:  They: (1) must be no greater in scope and duration than is required for the protection of a legitimate business interest  of the employer-promisee; (2) must not impose undue hardship on the employee-promisor, and (3) must not be injurious to the public.

In a decision filed December 1, 2011, the Illinois Supreme Court shook up the Illinois employment bar by overruling an extensive line of cases that had narrowed the three-pronged test described above to a two-pronged test created by Appellate Court decision in 1973. In a case referred to as the Kolar decision, (Nationwide Advertising Service, Inc. v. Kolar, 14 Ill. Ap. 3d 522 (1973), the Kolar court held that an employment restrictive covenant was valid if there were (i) a near permanent customer relationship with the employer, and (ii) the employee had gained confidential information through its employment. The Illinois Supreme Court emphasized in its December 2011 opinion that the Kolar test is not valid. (Reliable Fire Equipment Company vs. Arredondo 2011 IL 111871). The Illinois Supreme Court, instead, reaffirmed the legitimate business interest test, and clarified that “whether a legitimate business interest exists is based on the totality of the facts and circumstances of the individual case. Factors to be considered in the analysis include, but are not limited to, the near-permanence of customer relationships, the employee’s acquisition of confidential information through his employment, and time and place restrictions. No factor carries any more weight than any other, but rather its importance will depend on the specific facts and circumstances of the individual case.”

For the most part, the Illinois employer’s bar hailed the Arrendondo decision as a victory, believing it gave employers a broader basis for enforcing employment restrictive covenants.  Ironically, many attorney’s representing primarily employees were encouraged by the Arrendondo decision as well, believing it gives employees more room to challenge enforceability by challenging, factually, whether a “legitimate business interest” is at stake.

“Little Known” Two-Year Rule for Employment Restrictive Covenants – Illinois

While the foregoing is all well and good, a fundamental concept of law is that employment

Bottom Feeders – and Bottom Feeder Funds – Our New BFF?

Bottom feeders have a distasteful reputation with some – but, truth be told, they are among the most reliable leading economic indicators of recovery for the commercial real estate industry.

There is a stunning disconnect between equity markets and the economy as a whole. The Dow Jones Industrial Average is at record highs, with 15,000 in plain sight.  Equity investors are betting on a bright future. To gauge the economy by that measure, the economy appears to be healthy and rebounding nicely.

Leave Wall Street, and drive through urban and suburban retail districts, and the picture is not so bright. Vacant and boarded up storefronts are common. Parking lots are in disrepair. Shopping center signs are blank – or filled with half burnt-out signs displaying names of tenants past.

Sure. Commercial deal flow is beginning to pick up, but compared to what? A car travelling three miles per hour can triple its speed, but it is still moving at a remarkably slow pace by most standards.

I went for a drive recently, touring retail shopping centers and office parks to find out where the action is.  The answer?  Almost nowhere.   It didn’t really surprise me. Although deal flow is picking up in my practice, most deals are with cash-rich bottom feeders (or bottom feeder funds)  buying up distressed properties.  Not that I’m knocking bottom feeders. Chances are good they will (more…)