Category: Real Estate

COVID-19 Update: CDC Order Temporarily Halts Residential Evictions Nationwide until December 31, 2020

In response to the coronavirus pandemic, the federal government, as well as many States, have enacted eviction and foreclosure moratoriums in an effort to keep homeowners and renters in their homes and slow the spread of Covid-19.  One such moratorium was included by Congress in the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Securities (CARES) Act, which was enacted earlier this year.  The CARES Act provided, among other things, for a 120-day eviction moratorium for tenants who participated in federal housing assistance programs or who lived in a property that was federally related or financed.  The CARES Act eviction moratorium, which expired on July 24, 2020, prohibited landlords from commencing new evictions proceedings or charging late fees, penalties and/or other charges against eligible tenants for non-payment of rent during the moratorium period.

This week, citing concerns with the continued spread of Covid-19, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (the “CDC”) issued a new order temporarily halting residential evictions nationwide through December 31, 2020 (unless extended).  The order would prohibit landlords, owners of residential properties, or any other person with the right to pursue an eviction action, from commencing eviction proceedings against any eligible non-paying tenant affected by the Covid-19 pandemic. The new CDC order does not, however, preclude evictions for reasons other than non-payment of rent or release qualifying tenants from their obligation to pay rent or to comply with the other terms of their rental agreement.  In addition, the order does not preclude foreclosures of home mortgages.

Unlike the CARES Act, the protections provided in the CDC order are available to all qualifying residential tenants and not just those tenants who receive federal housing assistance or who lived in a federally related or financed property.  In addition, the order does not prohibit landlords from imposing late fees, fines and/or from charging interest on unpaid rent while the moratorium is in effect.

In order to qualify, tenants must submit a “Declaration” to their landlord, the owner of the residential property, or any other person who has the right to commence an eviction action, claiming their eligibility under the new CDC order.  The declaration must include the following statements from each adult tenant listed on the rental agreement: (1) that the tenant has used his/her best efforts to obtain all available governmental rental or housing assistance; (2) that the tenant either (i) expects to earn no more than $99,000 (or $198,000 for joint filers) during the 2020 calendar year, (ii) was not required to file an income tax return with the IRS for the year 2019, or (iii) received an Economic Impact Payment under the CARES Act; (3) that the tenant is unable to make rental or housing payments when due as a result of a substantial loss of household income, loss of hours of work or wages, being lay-off or due to “extraordinary” out-of-pocket medical expenses; (4) that the tenant is using his/her best efforts to make partial rental payments, taking into account such tenant’s other non-discretionary expenses; and (5) that the eviction of such tenant would likely result in such tenant being homeless or such tenant having to move into a “closed quarters” shared living space.  Failure by any landlord to comply with the CDC order will result in criminal penalties.

The CDC order will only be applicable to those States, local, territorial, or tribal areas that do not already have an eviction moratorium in place that provides for the same or greater tenant protection than those provided in the CDC order.

© Copyright 2020 Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP
For more articles on real estate, visit the National Law Review Real Estate, Transportation, Utilities and Construction Law News section.

CDC Issues Temporary Halt in Residential Evictions Nationwide to Prevent the Spread of COVID-19

On September 1, 2020, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) issued an Order under the Public Health Service Act Section 361 to temporarily halt residential evictions nationwide through December 31, 2020, to prevent the further spread of COVID-19.

Under the Order, a landlord, residential property owner, or other person with a legal right to pursue eviction action, cannot evict any tenant, lessee, or resident of a residential property from the property. The Order applies to all State, local, territorial, or tribal area in which there is no moratorium on residential evictions that provides the same or greater level of protection than this Order.

The Order does not relieve any tenant of its obligation to pay rent, make a housing payment, or comply with any other obligation under a tenancy, lease, or similar contract. The Order also does not preclude a landlord’s ability to charge or collect fees, penalties, or interest as a result of the failure to pay rent or other housing payment in a timely manner. Tenants are still required to pay rent and follow all the other terms of their lease, and may still be evicted for reasons other than not making a housing payment.

To invoke the CDC’s Order, tenants must sign and provide an executed copy of a Declaration form (or a similar declaration under penalty of perjury) attesting to their current circumstances and inability to pay, to the party attempting to enforce an eviction. A sample Declaration form is attached to the CDC Order and requires that the tenant seeking relief from eviction attest that the tenant: (1) expects to earn no more than $99,000 in annual income for Calendar Year 2020 (or no more than $198,000 if filing a joint tax return), (2) is unable to pay the full rent due to substantial loss of household income or extraordinary out-of-pocket medical expenses, and (3) will likely have no other option if evicted other than homelessness or living with more people in close proximity.

The Order, which does not include any provisions for rental and unemployment assistance, is being met with mixed responses. While many housing advocates welcome the action by the CDC, rental property owners are expressing concerns that the Order would negatively affect the stability of the rental housing sector. “An eviction moratorium will ultimately harm the very people it aims to help by making it impossible for housing providers, particularly small owners, to meet their financial obligations and continue to provide shelter to their residents,” said Doug Bibby, president of the National Multifamily Housing Council.

A full copy of the CDC Order can be found here.

© 2020 SHERIN AND LODGEN LLP

This article was authored by Trang Pham of  Sherin and Lodgen. 

For more articles on real estate, visit the National Law Review Real Estate, Transportation, Utilities and Construction Law News 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.

New Jersey Closes all Non-Essential Construction Projects

On April 8, 2020, New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy signed Executive Order No. 122, requiring the closure of all non-essential construction projects beginning at 8:00 p.m. on Friday, April 10, 2020. The executive order does not define “non-essential construction project”; instead, it lists the following “essential construction projects” that may continue to operate:

  • Projects necessary for the delivery of health care services (e.g., hospitals, health care facilities, and pharmaceutical manufacturing facilities);
  • Transportation projects;
  • Utility projects;
  • Affordable housing residential projects;
  • School projects (e.g., pre-K-12 schools and higher education facilities);
  • Projects already underway involving single-family homes or apartments with a construction crew of five or fewer individuals;
  • Projects already underway involving a residential unit for which a tenant or buyer has legally agreed to occupy by a certain date and the construction is necessary for the unit’s availability;
  • Projects involving facilities in which “the following takes place: the manufacture, distribution, storage, or servicing of goods or products that are sold by online retail businesses or essential retail businesses (as defined by Executive Order No. 107 (2020) and subsequent Administrative Orders)”;
  • “Projects involving data centers or facilities that are critical to a business’s ability to function”;
  • “Projects necessary for the delivery of essential social services, including homeless shelters”;
  • “Any project necessary to support law enforcement agencies or first responder units in their response to the COVID-19 emergency”;
  • “Any project that is ordered or contracted for by Federal, State, county, or municipal government”;
  • “[A]ny project that must be completed to meet a deadline established by the Federal government”;
  • Any work on a non-essential construction project that is required to physically secure the site, ensure building structural integrity, abate hazards, or confirm that the site is protected and safe during the suspension of the project; and
  • “Any emergency repairs necessary to ensure the health and safety of residents.”

The New Jersey State Director of Emergency Management (who is the Superintendent of the State Police) has the discretion to amend this list of essential construction projects.

Essential construction projects that continue to operate must continue to adhere to guidelines and directives issued by the New Jersey Department of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration to maintain a clean, safe, and healthy work environment for employees. These businesses must also implement policies and protocols to enforce best practices regarding social distancing and good hygiene, including but not limited to:

  • Prohibit all non-essential visitors from entering the worksite;
  • Limit worksite meetings and groups to fewer than 10 people;
  • Require individuals to maintain a minimum 6 feet of social distancing when possible;
  • Stagger work start and stop times to limit the number of individuals entering and leaving the worksite at the same time, to the extent possible;
  • Stagger lunch breaks and work times to enable operations to safely continue while utilizing the fewest number of individuals as possible;
  • Limit the number of individuals who can access common areas at the same time;
  • Provide employees with cloth face coverings and gloves, and require workers to wear them while on premises unless there is a medical reason prohibiting it (Note: If any individual (employee or visitor) declines to wear a face covering on premises due to a medical reason, the business cannot require the individual to produce medical documentation verifying his or her condition.);
  • Require essential visitors to wear cloth face coverings while on premises (Note: If a visitor refuses to wear a face covering for a non-medical reason and if a covering cannot be provided to the visitor, then the business must deny entry to the individual);
  • “Require infection control practices, such as regular hand washing”;
  • “Limit sharing of tools, equipment, and machinery”;
  • Provide hand sanitizer and wipes to employees and visitors; and
  • “Require frequent sanitization of high-touch areas” (e.g., restrooms, breakrooms, equipment, and machinery).

These businesses must also implement policies and protocols in the event the worksite is exposed to COVID-19, including but not limited to:

  • “Immediately separate and send home workers who appear to have symptoms consistent with COVID-19”;
  • “Promptly notify workers of any known exposure to COVID-19 at the worksite, consistent with the confidentiality requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act and any other applicable laws”; and
  • “Clean and disinfect the worksite in accordance with CDC guidelines when a worker at the site has been diagnosed with COVID-19.”
© 2020, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart,P.C., All Rights Reserved.

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

“Damaged Goods” Not Enough to Sway Third Circuit Court of Appeals

In early February, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the “damaged goods” approach to valuing property crossed by a pipeline. In UGI Sunbury LLC v. A Permanent Easement For 1.7575 Acres et al., the appeals court vacated the trial court’s property valuation that was based on an expert’s opinion that the stigma of a natural gas pipeline decreased the value of the property crossed by the pipeline.

The expert largely based his opinion on anecdotes from his past employment in an appliance shop where he noticed customers valued undamaged property more than damaged property. Under his “damaged goods” theory, the expert opined that property under which a pipeline crosses has a lower value because people perceive it as damaged. The panel held that the expert’s methodology was incapable of testing, had not been peer reviewed, was not generally accepted, and did not provide for a rate of error. While an expert’s opinion does not have to meet all, or even most, of those factors, the fact that this expert’s opinion met none left his opinion unreliable.

The panel noted that parts of the expert’s opinion compared the value of properties impacted by oil spills or the radiation emitted from the Three-Mile Island nuclear disaster. Those properties were figurative oranges to the apples and thus incapable of assisting the trier of fact in concluding the impact to the value of property under which a natural gas pipeline crosses.

Finally, the Third Circuit held that the district court must act as “gatekeeper” and ensure that expert opinions are based on reliable science.

© Steptoe & Johnson PLLC. All Rights Reserved.

For more on property valuation, see the National Law Review Real Estate law section.

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.