Call 855-808-4530 or email GroupSales@alm.com to receive your discount on a new subscription.
If you currently own or are looking to acquire a shopping center, office building or other commercial property, these transactions may bring with them some time consuming surprises and costly legal fees if existing tenants owe unpaid rent. An Illinois Appellate Court recently addressed this issue in 1002 E. 87th St. LLC v. Midway Broadcasting Corp., 2018 IL App (1st) 171691 (June 5, 2018), and ruled in favor of a commercial tenant after a new owner acquired a commercial building and attempted to collect accrued unpaid rent owed to the previous landlord. In affirming the lower court’s ruling, the court held that a subsequent landlord did not have standing to sue for unpaid rent that had accrued prior to the conveyance and explained that such standing is a right remaining with the original landlord to whom the unpaid rent is owed. Additionally, unlike other debt obligations, the court differentiated rent accrual as a chose in action that is not assignable. The decision raises questions about the strength of assignment and non-waiver lease provisions and also rights of succeeding landlords. Further, it raises concerns about the applicability of certain non-waiver lease provisions, in particular, the assignability of lease rights and obligations. Landlords, tenants, and lenders alike are now questioning whether this decision may facilitate tenants’ evasion of contractual duties upon acquisition or disposition of real estate.
By Terrence M. Dunn
Despite the apparent risks, relocation provisions are frequently not a potential tenant’s priority concern when negotiating the business points of a lease. This is a serious oversight. Signing a lease with an overly broad relocation provision can lead to many issues if the landlord elects to exercise its right to relocate the tenant.
By Alan Nochumson
Part Two of a Two-Part Article
By Gerald M. Levy
“Baseball arbitration” refers to the process used in Major League Baseball in which if an eligible player’s representative and the club ownership cannot reach a compensation agreement through negotiation, each party enters a final submission and during a formal hearing each side — player and management — presents its case and then the designated panel of arbitrators chooses one of the salary bids with no other result being allowed. This method has become increasingly popular even beyond the sport of baseball.
Contractual Allocation of Damage Risk Thwarts Insurer’s Subrogation Claim
Lacking Specifics, Lease Term Is Unenforceable