LJN Newsletters

Frequently, commercial lease issues are brought to the attention of a litigation lawyer only after a dispute between the landlord and the tenant has erupted. Oftentimes, the dispute involves the 'boilerplate' provisions that do not raise much interest during the drafting phase because they are not considered to be economic deal points. See 'Revisiting Boilerplate or 'Miscellaneous' Lease Provisions' in the January 2006 issue of Commercial Leasing Law & Strategy. This lack of interest in boilerplate provisions is a mistake because it is much easier to resolve concerns regarding those provisions ' which become very important in the litigation context ' while the parties are amicably moving toward closing a deal, rather than during the pendency of a lawsuit. Many times, disputes could have been either avoided or minimized had the parties clarified certain important issues while they were negotiating and drafting. This article discusses several leasing issues that should be carefully considered while the parties are still on friendly terms.

In the entire universe of legal and business terms that makes up the modern-day commercial lease, there are very few provisions that can change the world of the landlord or tenant. One of those world-changing provisions is the assignment and subletting provision.

For years, careful landlords and tenants have used liquidated damages as a means to avoid the uncertainty of events beyond their control. If the tenant held over beyond its term, or the landlord breached the tenant's exclusive, liquidated damages were considered a dependable remedy to avoid costly and time-consuming litigation. Unfortunately, what seems certain to lease drafters is anything but certain when presented in court. A recent decision from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia underscores that point.

The latest news and analysis.

Recent rulings you need to know.

News and analysis on the latest rulings.

A comphrehensive listing of everything contained in this issue.

Despite its ancient origins, adverse possession doctrine retains considerable contemporary importance. Disputed questions of fact explain the continuing volume of adverse possession litigation, but unfortunate statements of law have also been a factor. This past spring, in Walling v. Przyblo, the Court of Appeals took a significant step toward clarifying and simplifying adverse possession doctrine in New York.