Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The Leasing Hotline
OPTION TO EXTEND
A lease and an addendum signed simultaneously are integrated with an Estoppel Certificate subsequently signed with a new landlord where the Estoppel Certificate references the lease as being in full force and effect; however, the fact finder must resolve any ambiguity regarding an option to extend caused by the integration. Miner v. Tustin Avenue Investors, LLC, G031703 Consol. With G032006, Court of Appeal of California, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, Feb. 27, 2004.
Miner leased commercial space from Tustin's predecessor in interest in April 1997. The lease was scheduled to expire in August 2002. An addendum to the lease, also signed in April 1997, stated that Miner had an option to extend the lease until August 2007 as long as he notified the landlord at least 90 days prior to the termination of the lease. The option rent was scheduled to be the “greater of market rent” or 3% above the current rent paid by Miner. When Tustin purchased the commercial space, Miner executed an Estoppel Certificate, dated Nov. 21, 2001, in connection with the sale. The Estoppel Certificate stated that Miner had no options, rights of first refusal, termination or exclusive business rights. Thereafter, in May 2002, Miner notified Tustin that he intended to exercise the option to extend the lease. Tustin delivered a new lease to Miner with a rent schedule higher than that stated in the April 1997 amendment containing the option to extend. Miner sued Tustin for declaratory relief, seeking a declaration of what the proper rental rate should be. Tustin filed an unlawful detainer action, claiming that Miner had no option rights based upon the Estoppel Certificate signed in November 2001.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- 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
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
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
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
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?
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
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.