Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Methods for Securing Against Tenant Defaults

By Raymond J. Werner
October 01, 2003

The first part of this article addressed the problem of the impact of tenant defaults and bankruptcies on landlords and suggested various methods for the landlord's protection. The conclusion will discuss several specific devices.

Security Deposits. Security deposits are an age-old form of security for the performance of the tenant's obligations under a lease. In the simplest of transactions, the tenant deposits a fund with the landlord to be used to protect the landlord against the economic consequences of a tenant's default. The amount of the fund is the product of negotiations and usually involves a multiple of the monthly rent payable under the lease. In more sophisticated commercial transactions with other than the most creditworthy of tenants, the landlord wants the tenant to deposit a substantial sum, perhaps a multiple of the yearly rent payable under the lease, especially if the landlord pays for substantial tenant improvements.

An alternate to the security deposit may be to have the tenant pay directly some of the costs that would normally be paid by the landlord, rather than having the landlord finance those costs. For example, the tenant, rather than the landlord, may bear the costs of pricey tenant improvements (TIs), adding to its monthly financial burden, the cost of the TIs together with an interest factor. If this is done, the tenant will pay only the pure rent that will not include financing the additional amounts. In reality, this transfer of economic responsibility merely shifts a part of the risk of the tenant's default to the tenant who will bear the loss if it cannot remain operating as a solvent rent-paying tenant for the full term. Even with the “reduced” rent, the landlord may still want a security deposit to protect itself from the loss of economic rent if the tenant should default.

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws Image

This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.

The Article 8 Opt In Image

The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.

Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin Image

With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.

Legal Possession: What Does It Mean? Image

Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.

The Stranger to the Deed Rule Image

In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.