Tag: real estate

Retaining a Cell Tower Lease When Selling Property

When selling property with a cell tower lease, keeping the lease is a good option. Done properly, you get the best of both worlds: full value for the property and ongoing lease payments, with the option to sell the lease in the future should you desire.

Selling a property and cell lease together will rarely yield the full value for the lease; however, selling the lease in advance of selling the property may also not be attractive. You may not have other places to invest the proceeds where you will get the same return, for example, and taxes can take a big bite. Additional options, such as 1031 like-kind exchanges, are complicated with short deadlines.

Increasingly, real estate investors are opting to sell property — commercial, residential, land for development and, in a unique case, an office condo — but keeping the cell leases and future leasing rights.

To do this successfully, you should aim to establish balance with purchasers by retaining sufficient future rights to (1) renew the lease, (2) expand it some, and (3) satisfy their requirements for paying full value of the lease, should you decide to sell it in the future. You do not want to grant yourself so many rights that it interferes with a purchaser’s ordinary use and development of the property in question, thus decreasing its selling price.

Essentially, you are trying to attain the balance that would occur in a well-drafted cell lease sale to a third party, whereby keeping the lease is the equivalent of “selling” to yourself!

Specific subject areas where rights must be balanced include:

  • Permitted and restricted uses by both parties within the leased area;
  • Restrictions on uses or devices allowed on portions of the property outside the leased area, such as Wi-Fi using radio frequencies, which cell companies and lease purchasers alike desire;
  • Access rights and rights-of-way for tenants and utilities, as well as who pays for same;
  • Height and building envelope restrictions on new construction outside the leased area;
  • Property owner approval rights of changes in the leased area, and;
  • Relocation.
© 2022 Varnum LLP
For more articles about telecommunications, visit the NLR Cybersecurity, Media & FCC section.

Eviction Moratoriums—A Light at the End of the Tunnel? It Depends

With increased cases of COVID 19, most industries are holding their breath as to how these cases will continue to affect their businesses.  This is especially true for residential landlords.  Since this past March there has been a mix of federal and state moratoriums restricting landlords from evicting tenants for non-payment of rent.  The most recent moratorium on residential evictions was issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).  The CDC’s order entitled “Temporary Halt in Residential Evictions to Prevent the Further Spread of COVID-19,” which took effect upon publication in the Federal Register on Sept. 4, declares a national moratorium on certain residential evictions in the name of protecting the public health. See 85 Fed.Reg. 55292 (Sept. 4, 2020).

The creation of Order established a protection for a certain category of tenants, so long as they executed a Declaration Form asserting their qualifications as a “covered person.”  Once a tenant provides the declaration, the text of the order states that a landlord shall not “evict” the tenant from residential premises. See 85 Fed.Reg. at 55296.

While the CDC Order was issued to protect tenants, the ambiguities of the CDC moratorium have left the state courts to issue a patchwork of local Administrative Orders interpreting the moratorium and putting new process in place at the Magisterial District Court and Court of Common Pleas levels.  The result?  Unequal access by landlords to challenge the truthfulness of the CDC Declaration.

A review of the 67 judicial districts reveals a handful of counties that address the CDC moratorium and how it affects current landlord-tenant procedures.  Additionally, certain counties provide remedies for landlords to challenge the truthfulness of the Declaration Form.  By certain counties allowing landlords to challenge the truthfulness of the Declaration Form, it allows the moratorium to protect those truly defined as a “covered person.”  A majority of the judicial districts however are silent as to the landlord’s ability to challenge the Declaration Form, thus leaving landlords frustrated in scenarios where the tenant may not truly be a covered person and are allowed to remain in their apartment with little to no consequence.

With the number of COVID-19 cases increasing and the lack of any additional economic stimulus packages available will the CDC Moratorium be further extended? If it is, will the state Courts address the inequitable remedies currently created amongst the local counties?  Only time will tell.

©2020 Strassburger McKenna Gutnick & Gefsky
For more articles on evictions, visit the National Law Review Real Estate section.

COVID-19 Update: NY Governor Cuomo Extends Tenant Protections, Including Eviction and Foreclosure Moratorium

On August 5, 2020, New York State Governor Andrew Cuomo issued Executive Order 202.551 (the “New Order”) to provide additional relief to renters impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic and extended the time periods for certain other protections that had been previously granted to renters and property owners pursuant to Executive Order 202.82, as extended by Executive Order 202.283 and Executive Order 202.484 (the “Prior Orders”).

The Prior Orders provided for (i) a moratorium on evictions of commercial tenants through August 5, 2020, and residential tenants through July 5, 2020, and (ii) a moratorium on eviction and foreclosure of any residential or commercial tenant or owner through August 20, 2020, if the basis of the eviction or foreclosure is the nonpayment of rent or the mortgage, as applicable, and the tenant or owner, as applicable, is eligible for unemployment insurance or benefits under state or federal law or is otherwise facing financial hardship due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Executive Order 202.48 previously had removed the restrictions on residential foreclosures and residential evictions, as those has been superseded by legislative action.  The Laws of New York 2020, Chapter 112 provides for 180 days of mortgage forbearance for individuals, which period may be extended by the mortgagor for an additional 180 days.5  The Laws of New York 2020, Chapter 127 prohibits evictions of residential tenants that have suffered financial hardship during the COVID-19 pandemic for the non-payment of rent.  In each case, the relief granted extends through the period commencing on March 7, 2020, until the date on which “none of the provisions that closed or otherwise restricted public or private businesses or places of public accommodation, or required postponement or cancellation of all non-essential gatherings of individuals of any size” continue to apply.

The New Order extends a number of existing Executive Orders, including the Prior Orders for an additional 30 days, to September 5, 2020, effectively continuing the moratoria on commercial and residential evictions and foreclosures – whether instituted by executive order or passed into law by the legislature – until such date.

1       Executive Order 202.55, available here.

2       Executive Order 202.8, available here.

3       Executive Order 202.28, available here.

4       Executive Order 202.48, available here.

5       The Laws of New York 2020, Chapters 112 and 127.

© Copyright 2020 Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP

For more on COVID-19 related rental relief, see the National Law Review Coronavirus News section.

Proposition 13 Overhaul Qualifies for November Ballot

California Secretary of State Alex Padilla announced on Friday, May 29, 2020, that the revised initiative entitled “The California Schools and Local Communities Act of 2020” officially qualified for the November ballot. If passed, the initiative would establish a “split roll” where retail, office, commercial, and industrial real property would be taxed based on their market value, while residential property would continue to be assessed based on its purchase price.

THE CURRENT TAX REGIME: PROPOSITION 13

The current property tax regime under Proposition 13 generally provides that real property is taxed at one percent of its fair market value, which usually is the property’s purchase price. Unless there is a change in ownership of the property such as a sale, this “base value” can only increase by an inflationary rate that cannot exceed two percent per year. When property changes ownership, it is reassessed and the property’s base value is reset to its then current fair market value. Under Proposition 13, a property’s base value can be lower than its current fair market value, which in turn can reduce the amount of property tax that might otherwise be owed.

THE SPLIT ROLL

The ballot initiative creates a “split roll” if voters approve it in November. Under the split roll, commercial and industrial property with a fair market value of more than $3 million would be reassessed at its current fair market value at least every three years. The current tax regime under the Proposition 13 rules described above would continue to apply to all residential property, including both single-family and multi-unit structures and the land on which those structures are constructed or placed. The current rules also would remain in place for real property used for commercial agricultural production.

The process of administering this new tax regime will be determined by the California legislature, which will include, among other things, a process for reassessment appeals. The taxpayer will have the burden of proving that the property was not properly valued. The legislature also will determine a process by which to allocate mixed-use property between its commercial and residential uses for purposes of implementing the split roll.

The new regime will not apply to commercial or industrial property with a fair market value of $3 million or less unless any of the direct or indirect owners of such real property also own interests in other commercial and/or industrial real property. In that case, the new regime will apply if all such real property has an aggregate fair market value in excess of $3 million.

TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY TAX RELIEF

If passed, the ballot initiative would exempt small businesses from property tax on all of its tangible personal property. A small business is a business that: (1) has fewer than 50 annual full time employees, (2) is independently owned and operated such that the ownership interests, management and operation are not subject to control, restriction, modification, or limitation by an outside source, individual or another business, and (3) owns real property located in California.

For all other taxpayers, an amount up to $500,000 of combined tangible personal property and fixtures (other than aircraft and vessels) will be exempt from taxation.

WHEN WOULD THE SPLIT ROLL TAKE EFFECT?

The split roll would become operative beginning January 1, 2022, and the tangible personal property tax relief would become operative on January 1, 2024.

Despite the split roll becoming operative on January 1, 2022, the reassessment of undervalued commercial and industrial property will be implemented through a phase-in over two or more years. An owner of commercial or industrial property would only be obligated to pay taxes based on the new assessed value beginning with the lien date for the fiscal year when the assessor has completed the reassessment. In addition, if 50% or more of the square footage of a commercial or industrial property is occupied by a small business, such property will not be subject to the new regime at least until the 2025-26 fiscal year.

© 2010-2020 Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP

For more on real estate taxation, see the National Law Review Tax law section.

Issues Facing Commercial Mortgage Lenders in the COVID-19 Pandemic

The far-reaching impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic will create challenges for commercial mortgage lenders and their borrowers. Rents, and therefore borrowers’ ability to make debt service payments, will be curtailed as, for example, retail tenants are forced to shutter their businesses and apartment dwellers face economic hardship on a rising tide of unemployment. In this environment, lenders will face tough decisions on how to proceed with transactions that have yet to close and with closed transactions that are running into trouble.

Deals in the Pipeline

In the commercial real estate world, whether you are a borrower or a lender, one question you will be asked countless times during the pandemic is, “What do you have in the pipeline?”

From the commercial mortgage lender’s perspective, the pipeline likely means the loan transactions for which a term sheet or a commitment letter has been issued to a borrower, and for which no closing date has been set or for which various closing conditions have not yet been satisfied. Most loans require as a closing condition that on the date of closing, no adverse change in the economic viability of the project or the borrower shall have occurred since the date the loan terms were agreed upon. Given the extreme economic uncertainty now pertaining in the United States, and virtually everywhere else, it is hard to imagine a lender with deals in the “pipeline” that is not asking, “Do I have to fund?”

Many times the answer to this will be found in the list of closing conditions set forth in the term sheet or commitment letter. The condition addressing material adverse changes can vary greatly from lender to lender and deal to deal. One version of this condition is the following: “The absence of any material disruption or material adverse change in current financial, banking, or capital market conditions that in the sole judgment of the lender, could materially impair the loan.” The clause may also appear more simply and require only that there is “no material change in the market value of the project or condition of the borrower.”

As long as this terrible pandemic is impacting the country, it would seem to be nearly impossible for a lender to be able to accurately underwrite an asset under existing conditions, even one for which it had planned to lend against as recently as two and a half weeks ago. Borrowers who have based major equity investments and personal guaranties on the value of a project will have the same concerns.

However, there are borrowers that retain confidence of the same level as they had a month ago, and who may insist on closing. It will behoove lenders with deals in the pipeline to immediately review the closing conditions in their documents to determine the answer to “Do I have to fund?”  If the answer is “no,” a lender could decide to either close regardless or terminate the transaction. However, a third option also exists, whereby a lender could invoke the material adverse change clause as the basis for introducing new lender protections to the deal. For example, a lender could require that the borrower fund a debt service reserve at closing, require additional guaranties, or require that the loan terms include cash management features such as a lockbox.

Modifications to Loans That Have Closed

With the economy in turmoil, borrowers will be contacting secured lenders to discuss their actual or anticipated inability to make debt service payments. Most lenders will require that borrowers in distress propose specific modification terms, as opposed to non-specific requests for relief. A borrower might request modifications such as a reduction in the interest rate, the conversion of an amortizing loan to require interest-only payments for a period, or some other waiver, reduction or deferral of payments. A borrower might also want to take the approach of adding investors to its capital stack, and therefore request that the lender consent to the addition of one or more new equity partners.

When faced with such requests, a lender will need to perform its underwriting on the proposed modifications to determine their feasibility and prudence. It would therefore be appropriate for a lender to ask for additional property and financial information and reports, perform a site visit, and require additional due diligence materials such as title, judgment and lien searches.

Such borrower requests for relief also present the lender with an opportunity to better protect itself. Upon receiving a loan modification request, a lender should review its loan file in order to identify and correct any deficiencies.The following are but a few of the inquiries that should be included in such a review of the loan file. Are any documents missing?  Have all documents been properly recorded or filed?  Do the documents contain any errors?  Is all insurance up to date with the lender properly named?

In the end, a lender might agree to the borrower’s requested loan modifications (or some variation thereof). The lender could also add its own conditions to the changes requested by the borrower. For example, a lender could require new reserves, a letter of credit or other additional collateral, a new guaranty and/or new cash management arrangements.

If some sort of a deal seems possible, the lender should require a pre-negotiation agreement before discussing terms. If it turns out that a deal is not to be had, the lender might agree to enter into a forbearance agreement, in order to give its borrower time to turn things around or find takeout financing. Both of these types of agreements are discussed in more detail below.

Pre-Negotiation Agreements

Before having any substantive discussions, the lender should require any borrowers and guarantors (the “Borrower Parties”) sign a “pre-negotiation” or “pre-workout” agreement (“PNA”) in order to allow the parties to have frank and open discussions about a potential resolution to the borrower’s distress. The PNA should, at a minimum, provide the current status of the loan, including the admission of any defaults, and have the Borrower Parties admit the genuineness of the loan documents. The PNA should also (1) provide that any negotiations, discussions, draft documents, or loan modification proposals are non-binding until a definitive agreement is executed, (2) include provisions preserving the lender’s rights and remedies under the loan documents, (3) provide for the mutual termination of the PNA by either party for any reason, and (4) confirm the ground rules governing settlement discussions, including that all discussions and writings be confidential and inadmissible for evidentiary purposes. Finally, and most controversially, the lender could require a full general release from the Borrower Parties to protect the lender from future lawsuits.

Forbearance Agreements

Because a lender may want to give the Borrower Parties some breathing room, one option is for the lender and Borrower Parties to execute a forbearance agreement. The purpose of such agreement is for the lender to agree to wait to begin exercising remedies (namely, foreclosure or suing personal guarantors), while giving the borrower time for the economy to recover or to seek refinancing. In exchange for the lender agreeing not to proceed against the Borrower Parties, the Borrower Parties should reaffirm the validity of the loan documents, the amount due on the loan, and provide the lender with a general release through the date of the Forbearance Agreement. The lender also can require the borrower to make reduced payments during the forbearance period. Lastly, the parties could use the forbearance agreement to cure any defects in the loan documents discovered after closing.

Conclusion

The economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic spells bad news for commercial mortgage borrowers. In this environment, lenders will need to re-examine transactions that are currently in their pipelines. In addition, lenders should expect an uptick in requests for relief from borrowers of closed loans. In these uncertain times, lenders will need to be careful and exercise diligence in deciding how to proceed with troubled properties.

© Copyright 2020 Sills Cummis & Gross P.C.

For more on COVID-19 impacts on real estate and beyond, see the Coronavirus News section of the National Law Review.

Rent Relief Considerations in the Time of COVID-19

“In any moment of decision the best thing you can do is the right thing, the next best thing is the wrong thing, and the worst thing you can do is nothing,” said Theodore Roosevelt.

By now, everyone recognizes the havoc and uncertainty of the Coronavirus’s impact on almost every aspect of the commercial real estate sector – e.g., 630,000 US retail locations have closed, with the office and other sectors experiencing similar impacts. The duration of this crisis is uncertain, but in this evolving situation, every landlord, tenant, lender, and investor is processing and planning next steps with respect to their real estate relationship counterparties (while at the same time determining the applicability, if any, of insurance coverages; the applicability, timing, and requirements of government stimulus programs, such as the CARES Act; and countless other business continuity challenges). As April rents and debt payments come due or past due, many have already reached out to their counterparties (or their lawyers) to discuss short term solutions. These conversations are important to have.

While each situation may have unique aspects, and the lease language and overall relationship between the parties play a significant role in the outcome, there are some possible approaches for landlords and tenants to consider at this time including the following:

Rent Deferral: An agreement to defer all or a portion of rent (be it fixed or basic rent and some or all of the additional rent components – operating costs, taxes, insurance, etc. – due under the lease) for a defined period – say 60, 90 or 120 days. Deferred rent would then be repaid at some later date either in a lump sum or amortized (with or without an interest component) and repaid over a defined period once full rent commences – ideally, from a landlord’s perspective, quickly following full rent commencement, but this may vary based on many factors, including the tenant’s business operations and the landlord’s asset “hold” period. Restructured short-term repayment agreements deliver some immediate structure and “certainty” while providing tenant rent relief and maintaining the landlord’s cash flow under the lease, albeit restructured and extended, without adding defaulting tenants to the rent roll.

Rent Abatement/Tolling: An agreement to simply abate or “toll” rent (again, all or a portion of the various rent components) for a fixed period. After the abatement period, rent would recommence. This abatement approach provides tenant breathing room and cash flow relief but does not address the landlord’s on-going obligations – debt service, taxes and operating costs (although the landlord may be seeking similar relief from some of these). Accordingly, a landlord may resist this or add the abatement or tolling period to the end of the lease term (at what may then be higher rents).

Rent Reduction: An agreement to simply reduce rent for a short period of time to get tenant over the “hump” of the crisis while maintaining some level of cash flow to the landlord. While more economically favorable to the tenant than the landlord, this approach may provide other relationship benefits when coupled with other factors, such as an agreement to exercise (or not exercise) an extension or other option, future rent restructuring or other agreement.

Tapping the Security Deposit: An agreement or understanding that a landlord can apply some or all of the cash security deposit to rent shortfalls may provide a liquidity solution for both parties during the short term. The agreement could include replenishing of the security deposit at a later date or over time, or treat the reduction as a burn-down or burn-off.

Hardline: Some landlords and tenants will elect a more aggressive approach – exercising defaults and further remedies based on non-performance, or asserting that non-performance is excused or extended during the current Coronavirus pandemic based on lease language or legal doctrines (e.g., force majeure, impossibility or impracticability, frustration of purpose, etc.). In some situations, this approach may be appropriate. For instance, non-performance where a tenant is clearly not impacted or where the lease documents unambiguously prohibit such non-performance (e.g., a fully-net ground lease). It is also likely that a few will use this situation as a pretext for unrelated non-performance. Regardless of merit, these positions may simply set a difficult tone during and after the resolution, and the current court closures and restrictions (and likely backlog when those abate) won’t easily or quickly allow for a judicial determination.

Other considerations include the following:

Realistic Expectations: Set and seek goals that are practical and reasonable in terms of economics and duration and workable for all parties to the extent discernible and practical. While unilateral actions may be or become necessary, a mutually agreeable short term solution to span this crisis will likely leave parties in better positions post-Coronavirus impact.

Transparency: In order to seek and obtain relief, the requesting party should be willing to provide some level of transparency and evidence of hardship if requested. At the same time, while a showing of need may be important, requests for this information should be realistic and practical given the situation and fit the scope of the tenant and situation – rather than an exhaustive list difficult to quickly provide in current circumstances. This shouldn’t simply be a hurdle landlords use to reject requests, but landlords may need to explain, share or at least attest to tenant restructurings in order to obtain lender approval or latitude under loan documents to grant relief. Similarly, landlords may want to explain the limitations they face due to underlying financing or other restrictions.

Competent Planning: While difficult to assess the duration of the current situation, any request for relief should be accompanied by a competent and professional showing that there is a current plan to bridge the crisis based on realistic assumptions and that relevant stakeholders are putting skin in the game.

Lender (or Other) Approval: Parties should keep in mind that third party (e.g., lender) approvals may be necessary to restructure or amend leases. Consider seeking programmatic approval for parameters to restructuring/relief deals now to cut down on individual approvals.

Other Issues or Concerns: This may be an opportunity to address other outstanding issues or concerns providing the benefit to the other party and allowing relief to go forward – such as extending the term, waiving rights, acknowledging facts, etc. The degree of leveraging these issues during a crisis, however, should be prudently and strategically applied.

Documentation: Any agreement to modify, restructure or affect a lease should be in writing. This step is essential to ensure there’s an actual agreement to actual terms and conditions – even stripped-down writing is better than none.

This crisis has placed significant stress on both sides of the landlord-tenant equation. Both sides have suddenly found their operations interrupted, cash flow jeopardized, business continuity models upended, and have had their ability to perform their obligations to their lenders, investors, employees, and clients and customers severely strained. To the extent practical, each party should seek the mutually shared goal in this time to outlast the crisis impact in a manner that allows as quick a recovery as possible.

© 2020 SHERIN AND LODGEN LLP

For more on rent considerations among the COVID-19 pandemic crisis, see the National Law Review Coronavirus News section.

Three Real Estate Contract Questions to Consider Now

Whether you hold an interest in an industrial, commercial, retail, residential asset class; whether you are an owner, buyer, seller, landlord and/or tenant, lender or borrower, property manager, or homeowner; and whether your real estate is business or personal, there is a need to address COVID-19’s immediate impact on real estate agreements.

Generally, real estate agreements reflect the business climate and risk assessments at the time the contracts were made. In negotiating, executing, and performing their contracts, parties relied on their relationships with the parties on the other side of the transaction. However, when an unforeseeable or disruptive event occurs, parties must look back at their agreements and reassess their standing, rights, remedies, recourse, and relationships.

Now is the time to check on provisions of your real estate contracts. Below are three common questions you may be asking:

1. Which provisions of a real estate purchase and sale contract, lease, or loan document might offer protections or provide guidance at this time?

The following is a sample list of applicable contract provisions:

  • Force Majeure/Acts of God – Force majeure and other provisions in real estate documents that address the parties’ rights and obligations if events occur beyond their control. Some may cover national emergencies and governmental orders.

  • Defaults – Define which actions or inactions will result in a default under the relevant document and whether the defaulting party has any right to notice and an opportunity to cure.

  • Taking – What happens when all or some material right to utilize your real estate asset has been taken away or restricted in a way that diminishes the property value or prevents you from utilizing it for your intended purposes.

  • Access – Property owners will often have certain rights to enter and inspect leased premises and may have the right to restrict access. Purchasers and sellers of a property may have ongoing rights or obligations to allow access to properties to complete due diligence. These provisions may or may not address how circumstances may change in exigent circumstances.

  • Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment – The covenant of quiet enjoyment provides tenants with the assurance they will be able to peaceably use and enjoy their leased premises. These provisions may or may not specifically address a situation where a landlord voluntarily or involuntarily restricts access to the property.

  • Maintenance – Leases allocate maintenance and repair obligations, including but not limited to cleaning. Purchase and sale contracts may contain obligations of various parties on how the owner or operator must maintain the property through closing. These provisions may or may not address who pays or the additional costs of implementation of precautionary measures.

  • Payment Obligations – Payment and closing obligations are often excluded from a force majeure clause with specific clauses that provide that time is of the essence or require payment, despite any other provision that would excuse it.

  • Notice and Cure Periods – Leases, purchase contracts, and loan documents are often very specific about the required protocols for tendering notices, which then trigger specific cure periods. Failure to give or receive proper notice might impact deadlines for cure or performance and termination rights. Cure periods may be extended as a result of the inability to perform or governmental mandates.

  • Environmental – Environmental clauses in contracts may provide additional options.

  • Remedies – Real estate agreements often provide stringent remedies for nonperformance and default. Available remedies should be analyzed in the context of the overall climate in the courts and marketplace. Different parties may be able to avail themselves of certain defenses. Essential businesses may be entitled to certain protections at law and equity. Remedy rights may be expanded or contracted temporarily by governmental entities at the municipal, state, and federal level.

  • Duty to Notify – Parties may have an express or implied duty to notify other occupants of employees, agents, and/or visitors who have been diagnosed or are experiencing symptoms of the virus and were present at the property.

  • Performance, Contingency, and Delivery Periods – Contracts related to real estate may have performance, contingency, or delivery periods. Those dates (often expressed as a number of “days” or “business days”) should be carefully reviewed to determine whether voluntary or mandatory building closures affect the number of “days” or “business days” allowed for performance. Governmental mandates might offer tolling or temporary waivers of obligations.

  • Operating Covenants – Sellers of businesses and real estate or tenants may have obligations to keep operations going or risk default. Check contracts for provisions which require “continuous operation.” Parties may or may not have the right to close buildings, cease services, or implement security or screening measures. Some contracts may require notices of material change to representations and warranties, valuations or business operations.

  • Abatement/Self Help – Agreements may provide abatement rights or self-help rights for missed delivery dates or failed obligations on the part of the other party. It is possible that governmental actions, force majeure, and common law doctrines might already or soon will provide protections or require reasonable extensions.

  • General Deadlines for Performance and Termination/Extension Rights – Carefully watch dates and deadlines in contracts. Extension and termination rights are often narrowly construed, especially where there is a “time of the essence clause.” Some deadlines may allow for tolling in the event of a force majeure, but others may not.

2. What else should purchase and sale, lease, or loan parties consider as we all move forward from this point?

The following are some additional considerations:

  • Reliance on Third Party Providers – Not all third party providers whose services are necessary to perform obligations under a transaction will be classified as essential workers. Governmental orders may prohibit or allow such parties to provide services or restrict the providers to provide services remotely. Check the applicable and evolving ordinances and contact the providers directly to determine if services are available remotely. Assess how deadlines (including, but not limited to, filing deadlines, IRS Section 1031 deadlines, due diligence deadlines for inspections, title, and survey) may be impacted.

  • Electronic Signatures and Notarization – Some states have adopted legislation related to electronic signing and notarization procedures. Not all jurisdictions and providers have equivalent technology available at this time.

  • Recording Office Delays – Buyers, sellers, lenders, and borrowers are reminded that there will likely be delays in conducting recordings. Local recording offices may not be open for business or may experience a backlog. Electronic recording is available in some, but not all, jurisdictions.

  • Closings – Check with the title company on whether electronic signatures, electronic notarization, insurance over the gap period between closing, and electronic recordings are available during periods where there might be restrictions on face-to-face closings. There are fluid situations where maintaining a physical office may not be permitted. For example, the governors of California, Pennsylvania, New York, and Illinois have issued “stay at home” orders for residents in those states and restrictions on businesses. Discuss contingency plans if title companies and lenders are not able to fund on time. Essential service providers will be stressed, and electronic transfers of funds can be delayed.

  • Insurance Coverages – Do the parties have coverages for economic losses, including business interruption/business income and loss of rents? Are there any issues that are covered by commercial general liability insurance? Most standard form insurance policies will not provide business interruption/business income insurance coverage for forced/voluntary shuts down caused by pandemics, but the parties should carefully review all of their insurance policies with their risk management teams to see whether the relevant policies are non-standard forms that do include such coverage.

  • Evolving Federal, State, Municipal laws, Ordinances, and Doctrines – New laws and ordinances will result from the most immediate public needs and will continue to evolve as contract provisions are interpreted differently by different parties whose interests differ. Our Coronavirus Task Force has analyzed several legislative updates including this one on the Families First Coronavirus Response Act.

3. From a practical perspective, where should I start?

Discuss your specific situation with your attorney. Apply good business judgment. Everyone is suffering through this together. It is important to understand the applicable contract documents and assess your relationship with your transaction parties. Courts and Congress may end up taking unusual positions and taking protective steps in the coming months to avoid recession, flatten the curve, and share the loss in ways that today’s contracts might not have contemplated.

© 2020 Schiff Hardin LLP

I Have an Easement for Lake Access. Am I a Riparian?

The Michigan Court of Appeals recently said no. In Wenners v Chisholm, the plaintiffs owned property on Portage Lake in Washtenaw County. The defendant owned a back lot, but she and the previous owners of her property had accessed the lake using a strip of land located between the plaintiffs’ properties for more than 30 years.

The trial court found that the defendant had established a prescriptive easement for ingress and egress to the lake. However, the easement did not include riparian rights, and the defendant was barred from installing a dock or mooring any watercraft in the lake.

The defendant argued that the trial court could not grant her a prescriptive easement for lake access without also giving her riparian rights. The Court of Appeals rejected her arguments. It concluded that since the defendant could not show that she and the previous owners of her property had exercised riparian rights for a 15-year period, the prescriptive easement did not include riparian rights.

Had the defendant presented evidence showing that she and the previous owners of her property had installed a dock and moored a boat in the lake for at least 15 years, perhaps the outcome might have been different. But without that, the defendant’s easement to access the lake did not include riparian rights.

© 2020 Varnum LLP

ARTICLE BY Bradley S. Defoe of Varnum LLP.
For more easement access issues, see the National Law Review Real Estate law page.

Swap New Year’s Resolutions for Real Property with a 1031 Tax-Deferred Exchange

A 1031 Tax-Deferred Exchange (“§ 1031 Exchange”) is an extremely useful tax strategy for taxpayers that maintain real property for productive use in trade, business or for investment. It allows a taxpayer to defer payment of capital gains tax on investment properties that are sold.

A taxpayer continues to qualify for a § 1031 Exchange if the following rules are met: (1) the properties being exchanged must be “like-kind”; (2) the taxpayer must transfer property held for productive use in a trade, business or for investment (the “Relinquished Property”) and subsequently receives property to be held either for productive use in a trade, business or for investment (the “Replacement Property”)”; (3) the Replacement Property value must be greater than or equal to the Relinquished Property value; (4) the taxpayer must not receive “boot” in order for the exchange to remain tax-free; (5) the name on title of the Relinquished Property must mirror the name on the title of the Replacement Property; (6) the taxpayer must identify a replacement property within 45 days after the taxpayer transfers the Relinquished Property; and (7) the taxpayer must receive the Replacement Property within 180 days of the transfer of the Relinquished Property, or on the date the taxpayer’s tax return is due, whichever is earlier.

Section 1031 Exchanges, while an excellent tax deferral tool, are not without complications. Section 1031 Exchanges must be used exclusively for the exchange of real property held for investment or business purposes. Section 1031 Exchange rules also require the title of the Replacement Property to be under the same name as the title of the Relinquished Property. Any real property interests owned by a limited liability company or a partnership must be reinvested by the entity in real property of “like-kind” nature for investment or business purposes in order for it to qualify under § 1031. This is a problem if an individual member or partner of the entity wishes to “cash out” or reinvest in something other than “like-kind” real property. To remedy this problem, many transactions are structured as a “drop and swap” where the interests in the real property are transferred to the individuals as tenants in common and those tenants in common, as individuals, deed the Relinquished Property to the buyer. Because the taxpayers, as individuals, sold the Relinquished Property, it is the individuals that must reinvest in the Replacement Property to utilize the tax deferrals under § 1031. Because the individuals are tenants in common, each is able to choose independently whether to reinvest in a Replacement Property and defer tax under § 1031 or cash out and pay the tax on their individual earnings from the sale of the property.

However, this “drop and swap” technique is increasingly disfavored by the IRS and may create tax implications for the taxpayers if the real property is acquired by the individual taxpayers immediately prior to the sale. Since real property must be for investment or business purposes to be eligible under a § 1031 Exchange, it is best practice to distribute the interests in the property to the individuals well in advance of the date of the relinquishment so each individual holds the property long enough to constitute an investment. While the IRS has not provided guidelines on the length of the holding period, it is recommended that such transfer, or “drop” to the individuals occur at least a year in advance before the closing on the Relinquished Property and that records be kept of the transfer and the intent of the taxpayers to hold the real property for business or investment. Moreover, taxpayers need to take care when transferring (“dropping”) the interest in the real property from the entity to individual tenancy-in-common interests to ensure the taxpayers aren’t viewed as operating as a partnership and thus, subject to ownership constraints of a partnership (this would likely negate the drop and swap technique and require the individuals, as tenants-in-common but operating as a partnership, to all invest in the Replacement Property for some to benefit from tax deferral under a §1031 Exchange).

There does not appear to be any limitation on how an individual taxpayer uses their proceeds if they are cashing out, and have no intent to defer tax under a § 1031 Exchange. However, for a taxpayer to defer tax under a § 1031 Exchange the above requirements must be met, and there can be no actual or constructive receipt of money or other property before the taxpayer actually receives the Replacement Property. Even if the taxpayer may ultimately receive the like-kind Replacement Property, any receipt of cash or other property, including an interest in an additional entity or personal property, prior to that Replacement Property will make the transaction a sale rather than a deferred exchange and prevent the taxpayer from gaining the tax deferral under a § 1031 Exchange.

© 2020 Davis|Kuelthau, s.c. All Rights Reserved

See more on the topic via the National Law Review Tax Law page.

Real Estate Developer Rights When Cities Demand Too Much [PODCAST]

ANTHONY DE YURRE

Welcome to Land Development in the 305, a podcast featuring news, observations, and analysis on the redeveloping and reshaping of the Miami skyline. My name is Anthony De Yurre, I’m a partner in Bilzin Sumberg’s Land Development and Government Relations Practice Group, and I have with me today, my partner and chair of our department, Stanley B. Price. On my side, I focus most of my day on transit-oriented development, large scale mixed-use projects, and P3 development with government infrastructure. Stan, why don’t you tell us a little bit about yourself and your practice?

STANLEY B. PRICE

Thank you, Anthony. I have practiced for 45 years as a zoning attorney, and I had the privilege of being an assistant county attorney for ten years in charge of zoning in Miami-Dade County. I’ve been in private practice since 1981, and as you indicated, my practice is almost exclusive land development regulations, planning, and governmental law.

ANTHONY DE YURRE

So today, Stan, we’re very glad to have you here with us. We’re going to talk about a very important case in Florida. The decision of Koontz v. Saint Johns River Water Management District is a 2013 case that essentially requires municipalities to follow the constitutional rule of law and reigns in some aggressive requirements that were made on behalf of property owners in order to try to move forward with a particular project they had. Tell us a little bit about your view on the significance of the Koontz case.

STANLEY B. PRICE

The Koontz case is a seminal case in that it provides protection to property owners and the bane of every zoning attorney is standing in front of a public hearing and asking the local government to respond to exaction requests, money for a park, money for a school program, and the like. That practice used to be legalized extortion, but the Koontz case has changed that procedure, and the Supreme Court has recognized a constitutional condition — a principle which applies to Koontz. I think it’s important to understand the background of Koontz and it goes back to the taking jurisprudence of Penn Central Railroad in the 1970s where the Supreme Court indicated that as long as government takes property and gives you an equal compensation in that case in terms of transferred development rights, there is no governmental taking. We fast forward many years later to the Nollan case out of California. The Nollan case was a situation where a property owner was remodeling a house along the ocean in California, and the California Coastal Commission required him, as a condition of getting the permit to remodel his home, to grant a public easement through his property to the beach for the use of the general public. The Supreme Court rejected that concept. They said this is nothing more than an appropriation of private property and found that to be a regulatory taking. A few years later, in the Dolan case, the Dolan case involves the construction of a store, and as part of the condition of approval, the local government required the property owner to build a bike path and other improvements which bore no reasonable relationship to the project. The Court held and has become the framework of the Koontz case that before a government can impose a burden on a property owner, there has to be a rational nexus between what is being asked for and the request must be in conformity with the impact caused by the property. Fast forward to 2013 and the Koontz case, which was authored by Justice Alito. Justice Alito seemed to get in the head of every zoning attorney who practiced in the United States, and he recognized that a zoning hearing is nothing but authorized extortion. And he used those terms in the case and indicated that it is inappropriate for a government, exact donations from a private property owner, which have no conceptual reality to what is the impact is. The property owner owned a 13-acre parcel of property. It was designated wetlands under the local plan. The property owner came forward with a plan to development uplands three-and-a-half acres which were not wetlands by definition and the state agency said well if you want to develop that, we only want you to develop one acre, or if you develop the three-and-a-half acres we want you to give us $150,000, so we can nourish wetlands several miles from the property.

ANTHONY DE YURRE

Stan, that is literally the definition of extortion. Which is why I think the court uses such strong language, and we’re all thankful they did. And what is also interesting is that you know when you talk about constitutional rights what we see in the news nowadays, we will talk about you know First Amendment rights, religious freedom rights, things of that nature. But people just seem to gloss over the fact that this country was founded on property rights, and that is really one of the biggest issues that we deal with on a daily basis, upholding constitutional property rights. I guess it just does not get the same headline attention that the other constitutional protections do, but without that and particularly the Koontz case, you know, it really goes to the heart and fabric of what ownership in the United States is all about.

STANLEY B. PRICE

When the Koontz case was decided, I was going through a zoning process in a town in Northeast Dade to build a religious facility, and the city manager came to me and said: “I want you to donate $100,000 for town beautification and I want you to pave a roadway several blocks from your synagogue.” And my client was obviously very upset. I was very upset. We waited. The Koontz case came out. I brought the Koontz case to a meeting, and I said, do you want to be the picture in the dictionary for the Koontz case. They dropped their demands immediately, and we were able to develop the property.

ANTHONY DE YURRE

And you know what is interesting about that is that really is a great anecdote about the importance of constantly staying on top of all the latest case law that comes out. Whether it is our local jurisdiction here in Miami-Dade County, at the State of Florida level, at a federal level, and even at the Supreme Court level, you know? I think that of the almost 20 members of our department each mention an anecdote about a matter we had at hand that was pressing and because we specifically monitored case laws that came out, just like you did in this instance with the Koontz case, we were able to win the day and really,  you have to practice this type of law, you have to do land development, you have to do zoning, it has to be focused, and you cannot be a jack-of-all-trades, so to speak. You really have to be focused in that particular field and stay at the cutting-edge and the tip of the spear with the case law.

STANLEY B. PRICE

What has occurred as a result of Koontz is that generally United States Supreme Court cases, while they are important on a national basis, usually don’t filter down to local governments. But in this instance, the Koontz case formed the foundation of the state legislature in Florida forming and creating section 70.45 of the Florida statutes which basically provides a cause of action for a property owner who feels that they have been aggrieved by an illegal exaction, which is defined as an exaction which has no correlation to the impact caused by the development. The statute is a very clean statute. It puts the burden of proof on the government, not on the property owner.

ANTHONY DE YURRE

Incredibly important.

STANLEY B. PRICE

Yes.

STANLEY B. PRICE

To show that there is a reasonable proportionality. The statute awards attorney’s fees for the prevailing party, which is very important. And what it does, it creates a cause of action that basically provides that you have rights that you did not have before. Generally, zoning decisions are handled by a petition for a certiorari. This creates a de novo action you can take if you are at a hearing, and you are concerned that these conditions will be egregious to your client. You could wait until after the hearing. You do not have to object at the hearing. And then you avail yourself by this statute. Now, what is important about this statute is that…

ANTHONY DE YURRE

Before you continue, I just want to jump in on something you noted, which is the fact that you get statutory attorney’s fees for this. And in the State of Florida, unless you have a contractual right to attorney’s fees or a statutory right to attorney’s fees, you are not awarded attorney’s fees for causes of action in the State of Florida. But even more so, it is important in the case where you are dealing with litigation with a government entity because remember, the government entity really has an unlimited resource of attorneys at their disposal. They really have very deep pockets with tax dollars, and so ultimately that is something that I think both of us have had experience with, and when a client looks at that and says, you know when I go up against the government, the problem is I have a finite amount of dollars, am I ever going to get that back because the expense might be significant in this case.

STANLEY B. PRICE

— and the way to developers, of course, by unnecessary litigation. What is interesting about section 70.45 is that there is – the government has tried to wave their liability by having applicants sign a waiver beforehand that they will not seek damages.

ANTHONY DE YURRE

Yeah, sure, of course.

STANLEY B. PRICE

This specifically indicates in the statute it cannot be waived. You can sign every contact you want, but it can’t be waived. Number two it requires you to file an action no earlier than 60 days but no later than 180 days, to make your claim. The government has the ability to respond, they must respond, and what they say cannot be used against them at a later time except as to attorney’s fees. And the government has the burden of showing that the unconstitutional condition basically is in proportion to the impact of the development.

ANTHONY DE YURRE

So we have 2013 Koontz comes out. Then we have the Florida statue. Where are we right now in more recent case law? Because obviously, this goes back again, as you mentioned, in Penn Central, Nollan, Dolan, then we have Koontz. Now we have the Florida statues. Tell us where we are today. In particular, I think it would be helpful to talk about the city of Venice and mandarin development as well.

STANLEY B. PRICE

The City of Venice case is an interesting case in that the cause of action accrued prior to the effective date of the Florida statute 70.45. So the rules of procedure were somewhat different, and a clever municipal attorney had the applicants sign a waiver of liability to say that this was an annexation case. This was not a zoning case. And he said if you want to be in next to our jurisdiction, you have to make a list of 15 things. One of which was to make what they call an extraordinary monetary contribution to the local government. The Court struck down that extraordinary contribution as an unconstitutional condition, and in addition, the Court held that you could not waive — a party cannot waive a constitutional right in writing and must — and it cannot be foreclosed from bringing such an action. A somewhat similar case was decided shortly thereafter in Manatee County. It really wasn’t a decision, but the property owner was asked to dedicate property far in excess of what the impact of his project would be, and the property owner filed an action, once again a pre 70.45 action — and many land-use cases take several years to go through the court system — and the county — the judge in the Manatee County case refused to grant summary judgment to the local government. And in fact, wrote in his order what the county was doing here was an unconstitutional condition because the proportionality test of Nollan and Dolan was not met. The parties subsequently settled this case, and the settlement is interesting in that Judge Hall, who was the judge in this case, wrote a 45-page opinion indicating that the property rights were trampled in a good way. What does this mean to our practice and the like? Number one, applicants for zoning hearings no longer have to be a punching bag and get up and play Let’s Make a Deal. You want door number one, door number two, or door number three? Those days are over. However, you still see the local government attempting to do this on a regular basis. Sophisticated local attorneys, municipal attorneys know the Koontz case and know about 70.45. Unfortunately, several jurisdictions do not know that. I had a case earlier today, which I had been on a conference call.

ANTHONY DE YURRE

I heard you through the wall, by the way.

STANLEY B. PRICE

Right.

ANTHONY DE YURRE

It was an interesting conversation.

STANLEY B. PRICE

I talk loud. This indicates that this government is going to be sued under the Civil Rights Act and under the equitable estoppel principles were withdrawing a building permit for no basis whatsoever. Koontz is a tremendous weapon for a municipal attorney, a zoning attorney to know how far your client can be pushed and when you can push back. And I urge everyone to look at the statute and the decision of the Supreme Court, and it will make you feel good that Justice Alito may have been one time a zoning attorney.

ANTHONY DE YURRE

Well, Stan, I really appreciate your insight and walking us through the importance of Koontz and the pertinent Florida statutes. I think that we can’t forget that the constitutional right to this country was founded on really are those that pertain to property and it applies to everyone in this country from the largest developer on down to the apartment complex owner or the owner of the smallest condo unit and a micro-unit perhaps. It really defends people equally. Thank you all again for joining us on our podcast. Stan Price, again, chair of our department, thank you very much for your time in this podcast. Thank you for listening to us, and if you want more on this and other land development related topics, you can visit us at Bilzin.com and also subscribe to our new Miami blog at Newmiamiblog.com. We publish all the latest case law and other decisions that are pertinent to land use, zoning, and development in Miami-Dade County and as well as the State of Florida. Thank you.

STANLEY B. PRICE

Thank you, Anthony.

ANTHONY DE YURRE

Thank you, Stan.

© 2020 Bilzin Sumberg Baena Price & Axelrod LLP

More on zoning laws & development on the National Law Review Real Estate law page.