Commercial Real Estate

Double Dipping By Cummings Properties Not Allowed In Commercial Lease Dispute

by Rich Vetstein on December 7, 2022

in Commercial Leasing, Commercial Real Estate, Landlord Tenant Law, Leasing, Massachusetts Real Estate Law, Real Estate Litigation

Appeals Court Rules That Liquidate Damages Clause Is Unenforceable Where It Allowed For Recovery of Rent For Remaining Term On Top of Rent Received From New Tenant

If you enjoyed the famous Seinfeld episode where George Costanza was accused of “double dipping” his chips and dip at a family funeral, then you’ll appreciate this post. The case is Cummings Properties LLC v. Hines (Mass. Appeals Court Dec. 6, 2022) where the Appeals Court struck down a liquidated damages clause in a commercial lease which purported to allow the landlord to recover a large financial penalty even though it was able to re-lease the premises.

The case is a good example of what can happen where a party can get a bit too greedy in seeking damages in a commercial lease case. Cummings Properties, one of the largest commercial real estate firms in the Greater Boston area, has a well deserved reputation of being an overly litigious commercial landlord (in my humble opinion). I’ve dealt with them several times, and I can tell you a few stories offline. Anyways, in this case, Cummings leased office space to Darryl Hines, who owned a constable/process serving business. Hines had just secured a lucrative contract with the Mass. Dept. of Revenue and needed a larger office for the new business. The lease was for 5 years at around $16,000 annually. Unfortunately, only a month into the new lease, the DOR abruptly cancelled the contract with Hines, leaving him in severe financial distress. Hines tried to work out a resolution with Cummings but it refused to release him from the lease obligations. Hines then defaulted. A year later, Cummings was able to find a new tenant and signed a 4 year lease. Cummings sued Hines, who signed a personal guaranty, for some $82,000 in damages representing the entire balance of the 5 year lease.

The lease provided for a rather common acceleration and liquidated damage provision: 

"In the event that . . . LESSEE defaults in the observance or performance of any term herein, and such default is not corrected within 10 days after written notice thereof, then LESSOR shall have the right thereafter, without demand of further notice, to declare the term of the lease ended, and/or to remove LESSEE's effects, without liability, including for trespass or conversion, and without prejudice to any other remedies.  If LESSEE defaults in the payment of any rent, and such default continues for 10 days after written notice thereof, and, because both parties agree that nonpayment of said sums is a substantial breach of the lease, and, because the payment of rent in monthly installments is for the sole benefit and convenience of LESSEE, then, in addition to any other remedies, the net present value of the entire balance of rent due herein as of the date of LESSOR's notice, using the published prime rate then in effect, shall immediately become due and payable as liquidated damages, since both parties agree that such amount is a reasonable estimate of the actual damages likely to result from such breach."

There has been a fair share of litigation in the last several decades over the enforceability of liquidated damage penalty clauses. These clauses are generally enforceable as long as it is not so disproportionate to anticipated damages as to constitute a penalty. Courts will generally enforce these clauses if (1) at the time the agreement was made, potential damages were difficult to determine, and (2) the clause was a reasonable forecast of damages expected to occur in the event of a breach. Massachusetts used to have a “second look” rule where judges could consider the state of events at the time of the breach, however, the SJC stopped that practice in 1999 in favor of a “single look” approach which only accounts for the circumstances present at contract formation.

The fatal problem for Cummings in this case was that its liquidated damage provision permitted it to have its cake and eat it too. That is, it allowed Cummings to re-lease the premises, collect rent from the new tenant without credit or offset to Hines, then on top of that, pursue all of the rent owed by Hines through the end of the 5 year term. This is akin to the “double dipping” perpetrated by said George Costanza in Seinfeld. The Appeals Court ruled that the clause allowed for such double dipping and was therefore an unfair penalty.

So what are the take-aways from this case? The obvious one for commercial landlords is don’t be a pig and chase a small business owner for tens of thousands of dollars over and above what you received in new lease funds. As far as drafting these clauses, it’s a tough one because so far humans have been unable to accurately predict future outcomes. I would say that your liquidated damage clause should have some type of caveat that the tenant will get credit for any rent received from a new tenant and be liable for the differential in rent through the end of the term. Hopefully that would work.

{ 0 comments }

Tax Cuts and Job Act of 2017 Impact On Massachusetts Real Estate

by Rich Vetstein on December 20, 2017

in Commercial Real Estate, Landlord Tenant Law, Leasing, Massachusetts Real Estate Law, Mortgages, Real Estate Taxes, Refinances, Rental Housing, Taxes


Tax Reform Act Not Nearly As Bad As Feared For Massachusetts Homeowners

With Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell and their minions burning the midnight legislative oil, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 is set to pass with President Trump’s signature before Christmas. (Updated: President Trump signed the bill into law on Dec. 22).  Everyone is asking me the same question. How will the biggest change in US tax policy in 30 years affect the Massachusetts real estate market and homeowners? There’s been a ton of commentary that the Act is the second coming of the Apocalypse for the real estate market, but I’m not convinced. While I do have many concerns with the overall bill (bloating the deficit, etc.), my opinion is that it will be a small net positive for the real estate industry.

(Disclaimer: I am neither a tax attorney nor a CPA, and I don’t play one on TV, so consult your own tax professional for any tax advice).

Capital Gain Exclusion on Sale of Primary Residence – No Change 

Excellent news here. The long-standing rule has been that the gain (increase in value) of the sale of a primary residence is non-taxable up to $250,000 for a single person and up to $500,000 for a married couple, if you occupied the home for 2 out of the last 5 years. This provision has been a huge incentive for home sales for many years. In prior GOP tax reform bill drafts, the exemption was increased so that owners needed to reside in the home for 5 out of the 8 years preceding the sale. The National Association of Realtors argued that this change would have resulted in a 10% drop in home sales. In response to the NAR’s intense lobbying, the final bill does not include any changes to the capital gains exclusion.

So the current rule stays in place – you can exclude up to $250,000 as a single filer and $500,000 for joint married filer in capital gain on the sale of your primary residence if you lived there for 2 out of the last 5 years. This is really great news for the Massachusetts real estate market.

SALT – Real Estate Taxes and State Income Taxes — $10,000 Cap

This change is a “loss” to homeowners, especially those with high value properties and in wealthy towns. Currently, all real estate taxes paid in Massachusetts are 100% tax deductible if you itemize your deductions. In Massachusetts, those real estate tax bills can be quite large.

Under the Act, there is now a deductibility cap of $10,000 — which includes not only local real estate taxes but all state and local income taxes. This will be a huge hit to taxpayers in wealthy towns with high real estate tax bills. Going forward, taxpayers will only be allowed to deduct $10,000 of all real estate taxes and state/local income taxes. This is definitely a major “loss” for Massachusetts homeowners, especially those in towns with high real estate taxes. This change, however, may be offset by the increase in the standard deduction ($12,000 for single, $24,000 for married) and the boost in child tax credits, but if you live in Weston or Boston, for example, this is likely going to hurt.

Tax Tip:  If your real estate tax bill is over $10,000, consider pre-paying your real estate tax bill before 12/31/17, so you can still deduct it. According to the Boston Globe, most town assessors around the state are accepting such payments. Update (12/28/17): The IRS has issued a Formal Advisory on Real Estate Tax Pre-Payments. Click to read my full review here.

Mortgage Interest Deduction – Deductible Up to $750,000. No Deductions For HELOC/Vacation Homes 

Again, due to the NAR’s strong lobbying efforts, the GOP kept the mortgage interest deduction intact for the most part, but with caps, and equity lines and second mortgages losing their deductibility. I would say this is a net “win” for homeowners. Starting in 2018, homeowners can keep the mortgage interest deduction on a loan of up to $750,000, down from the current law’s limit of $1 million.

Individuals who take out home equity (HELOC) loans, however, will no longer be able to deduct that interest under the new bill. The same is true for second mortgages and vacation homes. No more interest deductions for those. So this change may impact the vacation home market, particular down the Cape and Islands. However, a rental property owner could offset this loss by renting out the home for a few weeks, per the new benefits for rental housing discussed below.

Importantly, these new rules only apply to new mortgages applied for after Jan. 1, 2018. Existing mortgages incurred on or before Dec. 15, 2017 will remain fully tax deductible. There is some IRS guidance on these new rules, so consult your CPA.

Rental Property Owners/Landlords — Thumbs Up! 

As Bloomberg News reports, the Tax Reform Act will be very good for rental property owners and landlords if they do business via pass-through entities — real estate investment trusts, partnerships, limited liability companies, and S corporations — all of which are set to get big tax breaks in the Act. Under the new rules, all pass through income for qualified entities will enjoy a 20% deduction on the owner’s individual 1040 return. For landlords who have greater than $157,500 (single) or $315,000 (married filing jointly) in qualified taxable income, they can select an alternative deduction of (i) the greater of 50% of all W–2 wages, or (ii) the sum of 25% of the W–2 wages plus 2.5% of the unadjusted basis immediately after acquisition of all qualified property.

Attorney’s Advice: I’ve always counseled clients to set up an LLC to hold title to rental property, both from a liability and tax planning standpoint. With the Tax Reform Act giving even greater benefit to pass-through entities, it makes even more sense to set up that LLC. If you need assistance setting up an LLC, please email me at [email protected].

Also for depreciation rules, the depreciable life term has been reduced — from 27.5 years to 25 years for residential property and from 39 years to 25 years for nonresidential property. In addition, while most other businesses will find their interest deduction limited under the Senate bill, that limitation doesn’t apply to landlords, who can continue to deduct their mortgage interest in full.

There are other rules also favoring rental property owners, so definitely consult your CPA to prepare for 2018.

Thoughts and Comments?

As an attorney who has handled thousands of residential purchases and refinance loans, I’ve never been one to ascribe to the notion that the tax code has a ultimate determinative effect on whether a buyer is going to purchase a home or not. I’ve always believed that tax implications are one factor out of many in the home buying and selling equation. In my opinion, income, job security and consumer confidence play a larger role. I would doubt that the young couple searching for a starter home in Medway is going to say “geez, now that the SALT deduction is limited to $10k, let’s scrap this whole home buying idea.” If people have decided they want to buy a house, they will usually do so.

Overall, I think the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 will have a net positive effect on the national and Massachusetts real estate market, despite the SALT cap and changes to HELOC/second mortgage deductibility. I’m hopeful that the increase in standard deductions and child tax credits will offset the mortgage deductibility and real estate tax changes. The no-change to the capital gain rules was critical and we have the NAR to thank for that. That was a game changer. And lastly, the rental and investment property market will get a big boost.

Rick Moore, Senior Mortgage Advisor with Zenith Mortgage Advisors in Holliston, is one local loan officer who is happy with the Tax Reform Act, both personally and professionally. “I think it’s a historic day, and I’m happy to have the extra money for some home improvement projects. Overall, if the economy will get a boost as expected by the administration, then that’s good for me as a loan officer. I’m looking forward to a very prosperous 2018!”

I do, however, worry about the addition of some 1.5 Trillion to the federal deficit as a result of the tax reform act. This is never good for long term stability of the economy and the housing market. It’s probably a safe bet to say that interest rates are going to rise to keep inflation at bay. I’m concerned that in exchange for some short term gain, we may be setting ourselves up for some long term pain. Only time will tell, but I hope Rick is right!

Feel free to post your comments below and on Facebook.

{ 6 comments }

Agents Can Remain Independent Contractors, SJC Rules, But Questions Remain

by Rich Vetstein on June 3, 2015

in Commercial Real Estate, Massachusetts Real Estate Law, Real Estate Marketing, Realtors

Tax-Information-about-Employees-and-Contractors-3SJC Issues Long Awaited Ruling That Agents Can Be Classified as Both Independent Contractors and Employees, But Leaves Questions

The Supreme Judicial Court has just released its long awaited opinion in Monell, et al. v. Boston Pads, LLC, (link here), ruling that Massachusetts real estate and rental agents can remain classified as independent contractors under the state’s real estate licensing and independent contractor law. The ruling keeps the traditional commission-only independent contractor brokerage office model in place, with brokers allowed to classify agents as 1099 independent contractors, without facing liability for not paying them salary, overtime or providing employee benefits. A collective deep breath should be heard throughout the entire Mass. real estate industry this morning.

Although the ruling determined that real estate agents are exempted from Massachusetts’s independent contractor law, the Court left open whether future plaintiff employees could build a case on other legal theories, and the Court deferred to the Legislature to enact a bill to address any murkiness which remains with the law.

Despite the question left behind by the justices, Gregory Vasil, CEO of the Greater Boston Real Estate Board told Banker and Tradesman said that, “We’re pleased with the outcome.” “It preserves the right of choice for our members. It doesn’t change the industry, it doesn’t change the status quo. It’s pretty clear you can have both independent contractors and employees.”

Corrine Fitzgerald, 2015 president of the Massachusetts Association of Realtors and broker-owner of Fitzgerald Real Estate in Greenfield, agreed, calling it a “good decision.”

Rental Agents Sue Jacob Realty For Overtime Wages

This lawsuit was brought by a group of disgruntled rental agents at Jacob Realty seeking to recoup lost overtime and minimum wages. As is customary in the industry, Jacob Realty classified the agents as independent contractors, paying them on a commission-only basis and making them responsible for payment of their own taxes and monthly desk fees. At the start of their employment, however, the agents signed non-disclosure, non-solicitation and non-compete agreements. They had to own day planners, obtain a cellphone with a “617” area code, adhere to a dress code, submit to mandatory office hours and to various disciplinary actions if they did not meet their productivity goals — requirements typically reserved for employees, not independent contractors.

Court Holds That Agents Can Be Classified Either as Independent Contractors or Employees

The SJC was tasked with balancing the independent contractor laws and the real estate licensing law — which in many critical aspects the Legislature left directly in conflict with each other. Justice Hines, writing for the Court, noted the difficulty in construing the two laws, stating that “the real estate licensing statute makes it impossible for a real estate salesperson to satisfy the three factors required to achieve independent contractor status, all of which must be satisfied to defeat the presumption of employee status.”

The Court ultimately concluded that a real estate agent could be classified as either an independent contractor or an employee, but that the agents at Jacob Realty were unable to demonstrate they were employees in this particular case. The Court, however left open for another case the ultimate questions as to whether all real estate agents should be classified as independent contractors. The justices said that “in light of the potential impact of that issue on the real estate industry as a whole and its significant ramifications for real estate salespersons’ access to the rights and benefits of employment, we think it prudent to leave that issue’s resolution to another day, when it has been fully briefed and argued. Should the Legislature be so inclined, it may wish to clarify how a real estate salesperson may gain employee status under the real estate licensing statute.”

This ruling is somewhat frustrating. The SJC punted on the major question that everyone in the industry has been waiting on for a year now. I love when that happens (insert sarcasm here). Whether the Legislature takes up this issue remains to be seen. In the meantime, brokers and office managers can sleep a little better tonight knowing that the chances they will be sued over employee classification has gone down considerably, but they still may be awoken someday with a nightmare in the hands of a creative plaintiff’s wage and hour attorney.

 

{ 4 comments }

Review of Massachusetts Snow Removal Laws and Town Ordinances

by Rich Vetstein on February 5, 2015

in Commercial Real Estate, Landlord Tenant Law, Leasing, Massachusetts Real Estate Law, Premises Liability, Safety

Shovel Early and Often!

This winter has been one of the snowiest on record, and there is another major snow event on the way. Judging from the astronomical number of recent clicks on this blog, it’s clear that people want to know all about Massachusetts snow removal law. The law underwent a monumental change back in 2010 with a Supreme Judicial Court decision overruling the 125 year old “Massachusetts Rule” which allowed property owners to leave “natural” accumulations of snow and avoid liability. Now, owners are under a legal duty to keep their property free from dangerous snow and ice. Moreover, cities and towns have been passing all types of new snow removal ordinances and by-laws regulating whether owners must shovel public/private sidewalks, and how long they have to clear snow.

It’s clear that it’s time to give you the most up-to-date information. So here is a fresh set of Frequently Asked Questions (and Answers) with links at the end to various city and town webpages on their snow removal policies. Good luck and stay safe!

I own a two family rental property with a driveway and one common walkway and entrance. Am I responsible for shoveling snow on the driveway and/or walkway?

The answer is yes. Under a 2010 Supreme Judicial Court ruling, all property owners (rental or owner occupied) can be held liable for failing to remove snow and ice from their property. The old rule was that owners didn’t have to remove “natural accumulations” of snow and ice, but the court overruled that in favor of a general obligation to keep property safe for all visitors and guests. There are also many local town and city ordinances which likewise obligate property owners to keep snow and ice off their property and sidewalks. I will discuss some of those below.

Can I use a lease which provides that the tenant is responsible for snow removal. Is that legal and will that protect me from liability?

It depends on your particular property. Landlords have the primary responsibility for snow removal at a rental property. Under the State Sanitary Code, property owners/landlords must keep all means of egress free from obstruction — that cannot be negotiated away. As for the removal of snow and ice, the Code provides that the landlord shall maintain all means of egress at all times in a safe, operable condition and shall keep all exterior stairways, fire escapes, egress balconies and bridges free of snow and ice. Again, those obligations cannot be negotiated away.

A landlord may require the tenant be responsible for snow and ice remove in a lease provision only where a dwelling has an independent means of egress, not shared with other occupants, and a written lease provides for same. On its face, this exception only applies to entrance-ways and not driveways or parking areas. I am not aware of a court ruling on this particular Code provision, but if I were a landlord I would not risk being on the wrong side of a “test case” where someone is injured badly.

So, in the example above with an owner occupied two family with one common entrance and driveway, that lease provision would be illegal.

Even if the tenant is responsible for snow removal under a legal lease provision, the landlord could still face personal injury liability for slip and falls on snow and ice under the SJC ruling.  A guest or visitor who is injured due to untreated snow or ice will likely sue both the property owner and the tenant. The property owner must ultimately ensure that the property is safe for visitors.

How soon do I have to shovel the snow before I get in trouble?

The City of Boston’s policy is to give businesses 3 hours to clean snow, and 6 hours to residents. In Worcester, it’s 12 hours to clear snow. Those are the minimums. As with any dangerous condition, my advice is to shovel and treat snow and ice early and often. Even a thin coating of black ice can cause someone to slip and fall and seriously hurt themselves. (Admit it if you’ve dumped on your rear end like I have!). If you are an out-of-town landlord, you must hire someone to shovel your snow.

Am I required to shovel the public sidewalk in front of my house/business after a storm?

In most Massachusetts towns and cities, the answer is yes. Check your local town ordinances for guidance. The cities of Boston, Cambridge, Somerville, Arlington, Belmont, Newton, Lynn, and Worcester (among others) all require property owners and businesses to clear municipal sidewalks in front of their residences or businesses. Fines are assessed against non-compliance. In Somerville, for example, if snow ceases to fall after sunrise (during daylight hours), property owners must shovel sidewalks by 10 p.m, and if snow ceases to fall after sunset (overnight), property owners must shovel sidewalks by 10 a.m. You can also be fined for shoveling snow onto the street, blocking a curb cut or putting snow on municipal owned property.

In some more residential towns, the local DPW will clear the sidewalks, but the default rule is that property owners are generally responsible for clearing their own sidewalks and driveways.

Will my homeowner’s or CGL insurance policy cover any injuries from slip and fall on snow/ice?

Yes, usually. The standard Massachusetts homeowners insurance policy and commercial general liability insurance policy (CGL) will have liability coverage for slip and falls on property. Make sure you have ample liability coverage of at least $500,000 to 1 Million. (You can never have enough insurance!). As with any insurance question, it’s best to contact your personal insurance agent.

I’m just a regular homeowner. What if the mailman or delivery person slips on my walkway?

You may be liable if you left dangerous snow and ice on your walkway. The new law applies to every property owner in Massachusetts, not just landlords. Get some Ice-melt and sand and spread on your walkway. If it re-freezes overnight into black ice, you will remain liable.

Helpful Links

Arlington Snow Info

Belmont Snow Ordinance

City of Boston Snow Center

Brookline Snow Alerts

Cambridge Snow Guide

Lawrence Winter Parking Rules

Lynn DPW Winter

Marlborough DPW

Medford Police Dept. Snow 

Needham MA Snow & Ice

Newton Snow Page

Quincy Snow Removal

Salem Snow Emergency Rules

City of Springfield Snow Rules

Somerville Snow Guide

Waltham Snow Policy

Wayland Snow Policy

Worcester Snow DPW

Winter Storm Precautions

  • Keep roads clear to allow plowing operations to proceed smoothly.
  • Use care around downed power lines. Assume a down wire is a live wire.
  • Check in with your neighbors, especially those that may need assistance.
  • Help dig out fire hydrants and storm drains in your neighborhood.
  • If you live on a corner, clear a path from the sidewalk to the street. If not precisely on the corner, as close to the corner as you can get.
  • Avoid parking too close to corners, allowing Public Safety vehicles and plows to maneuver safely.
  • Be aware of children playing in the streets, particularly climbing on or running out from behind large snowdrifts
  • Parents should remind their children to be aware of plowing operations and traffic.
  • Clear exhaust vents from Direct Vent Gas Furnace Systems to avoid carbon monoxide poisoning.
  • Never run an automobile until exhaust pipe has been cleared of snow.
  • Make sure backup generators are well ventilated.
  • Take your time shoveling. Avoid overexertion.
  • For homes heated by oil please be sure a safe route is available for delivery to your oil fill pipe.
  • Clear flat roofs and decks to prevent accumulation of snow/ice over the season.

{ 13 comments }

Houston, We Have A Problem…Is The Standard Mass. Notary Acknowledgment Problematic for POA’s?

by Rich Vetstein on November 28, 2013

in Closings, Commercial Real Estate, Condominium Law, Deeds, Massachusetts Real Estate Law, Mortgages, Title Insurance

massachusetts notary publicCourt Points Out Potential Problem with Standard Notary Acknowledgment Form

Could the the standard form notary acknowledgment clause used in virtually every recent Massachusetts deed, mortgage and other recorded instrument be defective in certain situations involving power of attorneys? That may be the result of a recent court decision by the First Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel in Weiss v. Wells Fargo Bank (click for link to case).

The ruling is causing quite a bit of angst in the real estate conveyancing community. Since Revised Executive Order 455 – Standards of Conduct for Notaries Public was passed by Gov. Romney in 2004, notaries public and attorneys have been using the approved notary acknowledgment form providing that the document is signed “voluntarily for its stated purpose. ” In the Weiss case, however, the court held that the notary acknowledgment of an attorney-in-fact under a power of attorney was defective as it failed to indicate that the principal has signed under “his free act and deed.”

The facts in the Weiss case are rather unique so it may have limited effect. But it should serve as a wake-up call for notaries public, attorneys and lenders that the better practice may be to use a notary public acknowledgment with the “free act and deed” language as was common before the 2004 notary rules.

Practice Pointer:  Going forward, I recommend that real estate attorneys, notaries public and lenders should consider using “free act and deed” language in notary public acknowledgments. See below for form language. 

Fact of the Case: Botched Notarization With Power of Attorney

In the Weiss case, a bankruptcy trustee for Chicopee homeowners attempted to use his “strong-arm” powers to void a refinance mortgage. The borrowers took out a refinance loan on their Chicopee home with Wachovia Mortgage. They signed a limited power of attorney to enable a one Shannon Obringer (who I assume was a bank employee) to sign the mortgage. The actual signing of the mortgage occurred in Pennsylvania by a Pennsylvania notary (I assume at Wachovia’s offices). You know this wasn’t going to end well….

The pre-printed notary acknowledgment form on the mortgage was the approved MA Executive Order form, which the notary partially completed as follows:

On this 11 day of June 2007, before me, the undersigned notary public, personally appeared Shawn G. Kelley and Annemarie Kelley by Shannon Obringer as Attorney in Fact, proved to me through satisfactory evidence of identification which was/were ________________ to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are signed on the preceding document, and acknowledged to me that he/she/they signed it voluntarily for its stated purpose.

Although there was some ambiguity from the wording as to who actually appeared before the notary and the notary failed to fill out the identification form blank space, the Court held that these were not necessarily fatal. However, the Court ruled that the language in the notarization that it was signed “voluntarily for its stated purpose” was fatally defective because it did not sufficiently demonstrate that it was the borrowers’ “free act and deed” by the attorney-in-fact’s signature, as required by Massachusetts statutory and case law. The Court went on to void the mortgage in favor of the bankrupt debtor.

New Notary Public Acknowledgment 

Going forward, I would consider using a notarization acknowledgment with the older “free act and deed” language in power of attorney signing situations. The 2004 acknowledgment should be ok for typical individual notarizations. Of course, you should consult with your title company, lender and/or attorney before notarizing in any tricky situations.

If you have any questions about notarization after this court ruling, please contact me at [email protected] or 508-620-5352.

{ 4 comments }

Not So Fast! Developer Cannot Avoid Creditor By Transferring Rental Property Into Nominee Trust Held By Wife

by Rich Vetstein on May 29, 2013

in Commercial Real Estate, Deeds, Massachusetts Real Estate Law, Real Estate Litigation

nail in the coffinWhy A Massachusetts Real Estate Nominee Trust Is Worthless and Useless

Since the concept of currency and debt was created, debtors have been playing a cat-and-mouse game with creditors in order to avoid satisfaction of their debts. A ruling last week by the Massachusetts Appeals Court in Citizens Bank v. Coleman (May 15, 2013) is notable because it put the kibosh on a formerly popular estate planning practice in Massachusetts where a husband conveys property into a real estate nominee trust held by his wife. The problem, of course, was that the husband was being chased by a creditor holding a $600,000+ judgment, so any action he took with his assets would ultimately come under the judicial microscope. And that’s exactly what happened in this case, as the Court unwound the transfer and ruled in the bank’s favor.

Old Debts Come Back to Haunt Developer

In the 1980’s, Martin Coleman, a real estate developer, purchased two multifamily rental properties in Waltham. Coleman furnished all the cash to acquire these properties. In 1986, Coleman married his wife, Pamela, who began managing the properties. She dealt with all issues relating to the tenants (including rent collection and filling vacancies) and superintended the maintenance, repairs, and payment of bills. In 1988, Coleman defaulted on a $6.2 million construction loan, which he had personally guaranteed.

In 1989, Coleman transferred, for $1.00, title to both rental properties into two real estate nominee trusts, with Pamela named as the sole beneficiary of each trust. Pamela continued to assist with the management of the properties, but Martin paid for all the property expenses.

In 1994, Federal Savings Bank obtained a $600,000 plus judgment against Mr. Coleman which was subsequently acquired by Citizens Bank. Citizens sued the Colemans, attempting to “reach and apply” Pamela’s interest in the two Waltham properties to satisfy the large judgment.

Interfamily Conveyance = Resulting Trust = Creditor Wins


The Appeals Court ultimately ruled that Mr. Coleman’s conveyance into the nominee trusts was a “resulting trust” — essentially a fraudulent transfer to avoid satisfaction of the large judgment. With respect to transfers between husband and wife, the law presumes they are not designed to avoid creditors. This presumption, however, can be overcome through evidence that the conveyance did not result in any change in behavior or financial responsibilities between husband and wife, as compared to before the transfer. In this case, the evidence showed that Mr. Coleman still held himself out as the owner of the rental properties, nothing changed as to the wife’s property management duties, and the conveyance was not truly part of a legitimate estate plan, as the Colemans contended. The Court ruled that Citizens Bank will be able to sell the two Waltham properties at auction to satisfy the judgment which is likely now seven figures.

Moral Of The Story: Trash the Nominee Trust

Real estate nominee trusts were all the rage in the 1980’s and into the 1990’s. A series of court rulings, however, exposed serious flaws with the asset protection security these trusts were supposed to provide. They are now out of favor, yet, they are still being used. Perhaps this case will put the proverbial nail in the nominee trust coffin. Memo to estate planners: They don’t work, so stop using them. Go with a limited liability company instead.

_______________________________________________

RDV-profile-picture-larger-150x150.jpgRichard D. Vetstein is a Massachusetts real estate attorney who is frequently consulted by property owners looking to shelter their assets. Please contact him at [email protected] or 508-620-5352.

 

 

{ 0 comments }

SJC Rules Commercial Landlord Cannot Recover Future Rents Under Older Lease

by Rich Vetstein on May 2, 2013

in Commercial Leasing, Commercial Real Estate, Landlord Tenant Law, Leasing, Massachusetts Real Estate Law

Case Highlights Importance of Rent Acceleration Clause In Commercial Leases

In a decision underscoring the importance of careful commercial lease drafting, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has ruled that a commercial landlord must wait out a 12 year lease term to recover unpaid rent from a tenant who abandoned the premises in year 2 of the lease. We lawyers call this a Pyrrhic victory: “a victory offset by staggering losses.” The case is 275 Washington Street Corp. vs. Hudson River Int’l, LLC (SJC-11217). 

Practice Pointer: This case is an important reminder for all residential and commercial landlords to have their leases reviewed to ensure that they can recover all available lost rental damages. Contact me at [email protected] for a lease review.

Facts: Dental Practice Goes South Quickly

The landlord and tenant, a dental practice, entered into a 12-year lease beginning in 2006 for medical office space located at 221-227 Washington Street in downtown Boston. Barely a year later, the dental practice went under and closed. In May 2008, the dentist told the landlord that he would not be making any further lease payments.

Fortunately, the landlord found a new tenant. A new 10 year lease was signed, covering the remainder of the dentist’s term, but at a lower rent. The landlord sued the dentist for the rent differential — some $1 Million Dollars.

Standard Indemnification Clause

The lease contained a standard default indemnification clause found in many older standard lease forms:

The LESSEE shall indemnify the LESSOR against all loss of rent and other payments which the LESSOR may incur by reason of such termination during the residue of the term.  If the LESSEE shall default, after reasonable notice thereof, in the observance or performance of any conditions or covenant on LESSEE’s part to be observed or performed under or by virtue of any of the provisions in any article of this lease, the LESSOR, without being under any obligation to do so and without thereby waiving such default, may remedy such default for the account and at the expense of the LESSEE.

Common Law Rule: Put It In The Lease

The SJC pointed out long standing Massachusetts common law “where the contract is a commercial lease, our common law does not provide ‘benefit of the bargain’ damages in the event of termination of the lease following a breach. Once a landlord terminates a lease, the tenant is no longer obligated to pay the rent, and, unless the lease otherwise so provides, the landlord is not entitled to posttermination damages.” This may be contrary to common understanding, but it’s the reason why lawyers have developed rent acceleration and liquidated damages provisions for commercial leases.

Despite the urging of the Real Estate Bar Association, which filed a friend-of-the-court brief, the SJC saw no need to alter the harsh common law simply because this particular landlord’s lease failed to provide a proper rent acceleration clause. Justice Gants didn’t mince his words in cautioning commercial landlords to use proper lease provisions:

 A landlord left without an adequate remedy following breach of the lease by a tenant has only itself to blame for entering into a lease that fails to provide such a remedy. We shall not disrupt the settled expectations of leasing parties in order to protect a landlord from the consequences of failing to insist on an adequate remedy in the negotiation of a commercial lease. Nor shall we invite uncertainty as to the availability and scope of a landlord’s remedy for “benefit of the bargain” damages where the contours of such a remedy are not delineated in the lease but left to be determined under the common law.

Solution: Rent Acceleration/Liquidated Damages Clause

The lease in this case appears to be of an older variety and did not contain a rent acceleration/liquidated damage clause. Such a clause provides that upon a rent default, all unpaid rent is due through the end of the lease term as liquidated damages. All commercial leases should contain this type of rent acceleration clause, and I would also recommend a provision enabling the landlord to recoup the cost of expensive tenant build outs where a tenant has defaulted early in the lease term. Contact me at [email protected] for a lease review.

_________________________________________________

Richard D. Vetstein, Esq.Richard D. Vetstein, Esq. is an experienced Massachusetts real estate attorney. For more information, please contact him at 508-620-5352 or [email protected].

{ 2 comments }

Medical Marijuana Dispensaries, Coming To A Town Near You!

by Rich Vetstein on March 14, 2013

in Commercial Real Estate, Massachusetts Real Estate Law, Medical Marijuana, Zoning

massachusetts medical marijuanaAttorney General Strikes Down Wakefield Ban On Medical Marijuana Dispensaries

As I predicted months ago, Massachusetts towns cannot enact zoning by-laws prohibiting medical marijuana dispensaries from opening in town, as the Attorney General has just ruled in an advisory opinion involving the Town of Wakefield. In the same ruling, the Attorney General advised that towns do have the authority through its zoning powers to regulate the location, operating hours, and other zoning related aspects of these dispensaries. In a separate ruling involving the Town of Burlington, the AG ruled that towns may enact a temporary moratorium (through June 2014) on the opening of marijuana dispensaries.

The AG’s medical marijuana ruling for Wakefield can be read here. The AG’s medical marijuana ruling for Burlington can be read here.

Now it will be up to towns and cities to regulate where medical marijuana centers will be located within their borders — for example, near a hospital, in an industrial area or away from schools or residential areas.

This is the first legal ruling involving medical marijuana in the Commonwealth, and certainly won’t be the last. This hot-button issue will most definitely find its way to the courts, and I’ll be keeping you updated with any new developments.

{ 0 comments }

Email Disclaimers: Toothless, Useful, Or A Little Of Both?

by Rich Vetstein on February 2, 2013

in Commercial Real Estate, Massachusetts Real Estate Law, Offer To Purchase, Purchase and Sale Agreements, Real Estate Litigation, Realtors, Technology

email-1-354x385

A Simple Email Disclaimer Cannot Hurt & Can Only Help

Boilerplate email disclaimers at the bottom of messages are so ubiquitous that most of us hardly notice them anymore. They certainly take up a lot of text space and can be annoying to some, but are they legally effective or just plain toothless?

In the real estate context, where Realtors and attorneys write in the language of contract everyday, I believe that a short and simple email disclaimer may help, and certainly cannot hurt, the sender (aside from annoying a snarky recipient or two). In this post, I will discuss a few common real estate situations where an email disclaimer could come into play, then give you the disclaimer that I use in my emails. Now I have my own disclaimer here: A court will determine each case individually, and there is no guarantee that any particular disclaimer will be effective in any given case.

Contract Negotiations

The most common situation where an email disclaimer could come into play is during real estate contract negotiations. For many agents and attorneys, e-mail has become the default mode of communication, replacing the telephone and the outdated fax. E-mail, however, can provide the “smoking gun” in litigation because it’s nearly impossible to delete permanently, and people tend to be more casual and less introspective before hitting “send.” And don’t get me started with texting, which is even worse.

Realtors must remember that under Massachusetts agency law they are agents with actual or apparent legal authority to bind their clients to the statements they make in emails and other forms of communication. Like the Miranda warnings given by the police, a real estate agents’ statements “can and will be used against them in a court of law.” The same is true for attorneys.

A case in point: In the recent well-publicized case of Feldberg v. Coxall, a Massachusetts judge ruled that a series of e-mail exchanges between the buyer and seller’s attorney, the last one attaching a revised, but unsigned, offer to purchase, could create a binding contract even though no formal written agreement was ever signed. This is also one of the first cases applying the new Massachusetts E-Sign law to preliminary negotiations in real estate deals. There have been cases in other jurisdictions holding that e-mails can result in a binding contract even though the parties may have assumed otherwise.

Practice Pointer:

“Emails sent or received shall neither constitute acceptance of conducting transactions via electronic means nor shall create a binding contract in the absence of a fully signed written agreement.”

This is the new email disclaimer that I’ve formulated after the Feldberg ruling. It does two things. First, it provides that only a fully signed contract can bind the parties. Second, it attempts to counter the presumption in the E-sign Act of conducting the transaction electronically via email. It has not been tested in court yet, but again, aside from taking up some pixel space, it can’t hurt. Now remember, this type of disclaimer would favor a selling/listing agent, but not necessarily a buyer’s agent, because the buyer’s agent would typically want to enforce preliminary negotiations. So, caveat emptor (buyer beware).

Practice Pointer: “Subject to final client review/approval”

Another best practice that Realtors and attorneys should get in the habit of doing is to write “subject to final client review and approval” or words to that effect in the midst of email contract negotiations and draft agreements being circulated. This could sway a court from determining that a binding deal was formed, and plus, it gives you an “out” in case a client has last minute changes.

Confidential Communications

Attorneys love to use long confidentiality disclaimers in their email. Do they work? Occasionally. Do they matter in real estate? I still think so.

First, the concept of legal confidentiality is limited to those situations governed by legal privilege. There is an attorney-client privilege between lawyers and their clients, obviously. While there is no legal privilege between a Realtor and his/her client as for communications solely between the agent and the client, the attorney client privilege will likely attach to emails and communications between and among the real estate agent, the attorney, and the client provided that legal advice is being given. But a particular email does not automatically get confidentiality protection simply because the attorney is copied on it. Some courts have pointed to email disclaimers as a factor in upholding the confidentiality. But there have been many court rulings where judges have discarded the disclaimers.

While attorneys should absolutely have a confidentiality email disclaimer, do Realtors need one? I say yes, because sometimes emails between attorney and client wind up in Realtors’ inboxes and sometimes they get forwarded on purpose or by mistake when they shouldn’t, and that could waive any privilege which is attached and become the “smoking gun.”

Practice Pointer:

I use this simple email disclaimer:

CONFIDENTIALITY: This e-mail message and any attachments are confidential and may be privileged.

The best practice, of course, is to cleanse and delete portions of any email with attorney-client or confidential information before forwarding. And of course, THINK BEFORE YOU HIT SEND!

**Thank you to Cambridge MA Realtor Charles Cherney for suggesting this topic!

______________________________________________________

RDV-profile-picture-larger-150x150.jpgRichard D. Vetstein, Esq. is a nationally recognized real estate attorney who writes frequently about legal issues facing the real estate industry. He can be reached at [email protected].

{ 4 comments }

Break Out the Shovels and Ice-Melt: New Massachusetts Mandatory Snow and Ice Removal Law

by Rich Vetstein on December 30, 2012

in Commercial Real Estate, Landlord Tenant Law, Leasing, Massachusetts Real Estate Law, Premises Liability, Rental Housing, Safety

Ice slip drink

Blizzard Warning Issued For 2/7/13

This post will provide you with frequently asked questions concerning Massachusetts snow and ice removal law.

I am a homeowner and rental property owner. Am I legally required to clear snow and ice after a storm?

The law now in Massachusetts is that all Massachusetts property owners and landlords are legally responsible for the removal of snow and ice from their property. In 2010, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court overruled 125 years of legal precedent which protected property owners from “natural accumulations of ice and snow,” and announced this new rule. My prior post on the case can be read here. The rule applies across the board, to homeowners, landlords, commercial business owners, restaurants, everyone.

I am a landlord. How long do I have to shovel snow and ice on my rental property?

There is no clear cut answer to this question, and juries and courts will ultimately decide what is reasonable. The City of Boston’s policy is to give businesses 3 hours to clean snow, and 6 hours to residents. My advice is to shovel and treat snow and ice early and often. Even a thin coating of black ice can cause someone to slip and fall and seriously hurt themselves. (Admit it if you’ve dumped on your rear end like I have!). If you are an out-of-town landlord, you must hire someone to shovel your snow.

My lease states that the tenant is responsible for snow shoveling. Will that protect me from liability?

Probably not. A person who is injured due to untreated snow or ice will likely sue both the property owner and the tenant. The property owner must ultimately ensure that the property is safe for visitors. The landlord may bring a claim for contribution/indemnification against the tenant.

L_ice_meltI live in Boston, and I heard I have to shovel the public sidewalk in front of my house after a storm. Is that true?

Yes. On top of their added responsibilities, property owners in several Massachusetts communities, including Boston, Cambridge, Newton, Lynn, and Worcester, are required by local ordinances to clear municipal sidewalks in front of their residences or businesses. The City of Boston mandates clean sidewalks within 6 hours of a storm; Worcester is 12 hours.

Will my homeowner’s or CGL insurance policy cover any injuries from slip and fall on snow/ice?

Yes, usually. The standard Massachusetts homeowners insurance policy and commercial general liability insurance policy (CGL) will have liability coverage for slip and falls on property. Make sure you have ample liability coverage of at least $500,000 to 1 Million. (You can never have enough insurance!). As with any insurance question, it’s best to contact your personal insurance agent.

If you have additional questions, please ask them in the comment forms below!

Resources: City of Cambridge Snow Removal Policy, City of Boston Know Snow Fact Page

___________________________________________

RDV-profile-picture-larger-150x150.jpgRichard D. Vetstein, Esq. is an experienced Massachusetts real estate attorney who advises property owners and landlords as to liability issues. Please contact him at 508-620-5352 or at [email protected].

{ 16 comments }

SJC To Hear “North End Ten’s” Challenge To Revitalization of Long Wharf

by Rich Vetstein on October 2, 2012

in Commercial Real Estate, Environmental Law, Massachusetts Real Estate Law, Permitting/Zoning, Zoning

Fate of New Long Wharf Waterfront Restaurant At Stake

A neighborhood fight to preserve prime public waterfront space at the tip of Boston’s Long Wharf will be heard by the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) in November. Ten North End neighbors — termed the “North End Ten” —  have been battling the Boston Redevelopment Authority (BRA) and the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) for six years over the city’s plan to lease the space to a restaurateur who wants to build “Doc’s Long Wharf,” a new pub style restaurant and bar at the scenic location. Residents argue that the state constitution requires a two-thirds vote of the Legislature before public open space can be converted to other uses.

The legal issues in the case are rather complicated, dealing with historic uses of Long Wharf and whether it was dedicated to public use as open space and is thus protected under Article 97 of the Massachusetts Constitution, requiring a two-thirds vote of the Legislature to effect a disposition or change in use of the land. The BRA’s original proposal was for a 220-seat pub that would have replaced the pavilion located beyond the Marriott Long Wharf hotel and Chart House restaurant. BRA officials have argued that the restaurant would help activate the waterfront. Residents argued it would create more noise and disturbance in a picturesque park area.

This case really exemplifies why Massachusetts and the City of Boston have a bad reputation for real estate permitting. If you ever been down to this area at the tip of Long Wharf, you know it’s screaming out for better use. Right now, it’s often inhabited by skateboarders and vagrants, annoying folks trying to soak in the beautiful views of Boston Harbor. I think that a nice restaurant with stunning harbor views and an outdoor patio area would be amazing and a great addition to the under-utilized end of that pier. Under the proposed Chapter 91 license, the proposed use would maintain public access along the wharf. It was the same situation with Rowes Wharf decades ago, and now look at that space. It is a model of waterfront mixed use development.

But 10 neighborhood activists disagree, and the travesty is that they can derail this project for years. Indeed, the lead plaintiff, Sanjoy Mahajan, lives a mile away from Long Wharf on Jackson Street. The other plaintiffs are scattered throughout North End proper, buffered from the proposed restaurant by the massive Marriott Long Wharf, the harbor and Christopher Columbus Park. These activists are not remotely affected by the proposed restaurant in terms of noise and the like. Notably, not one resident of Harbor Towers, the residential condominium closest to Long Wharf, have participated in this legal challenge.

I hope that even if the SJC rules that a 2/3rds legislative vote is required here, that our elected officials will not cave in to the whims of a few locals at the expense of the public at large.

______________________________________

Richard D. Vetstein, Esq. is a Massachusetts real estate and zoning attorney. Mr. Vetstein frequently represents Boston residents and companies in zoning matters before City of Boston zoning and licensing boards.

{ 1 comment }

“All Risk” Property Insurance Coverage Doesn’t Mean Every Risk

by Rich Vetstein on July 17, 2012

in Commercial Leasing, Commercial Real Estate, Insurance, Massachusetts Real Estate Law, Safety

Insured Gets The Short End Of The Insurance Coverage Stick For Parking Lot & Building Flooding

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has not been too kind to insureds these days. For the second time in 2 months, the SJC has upheld the denial of a property owner’s claim in connection with flooding, this time in the commercial setting.  In Surabian Realty Co. v. NGM Insurance Co., the Court ruled that a commercial property owner’s claim for flooding caused by a blocked parking lot catch basin was not covered under an “all risk” commercial/business insurance policy.

Blocked Drain

Surabian Realty owned an office building in Foxborough. During heavy rains in 2009, rainwater stopped flowing down the parking lot drain. The drain had become clogged with debris. Rainwater then ponded in the lot and seeped under the door of the building, flooding its lower level. The flooding caused damage to the carpeting, baseboards, and walls, totaling approximately $34,000.

Surabian made a claim under its “all risk” commercial insurance policy which had a special indorsement for this type of situation, which provided, “The most we will pay for loss or damage caused by water that backs up or overflows from a sewer, drain or sump is $25,000 for any one occurrence.” The insurance company, however, denied  the claim on the grounds that the flooding was still excluded from coverage as it was caused by “surface water.”

Court Rules For Insurance Company (Again)

The SJC took an electron microscope to the policy language, parsing the language almost to a fault and unfairly (in my opinion) against the insured. The Court held:

“Construing these clauses in combination, we interpret the insurance contract, as amended by the indorsement, to exclude damage caused by flood waters that spread over the surface of the ground without having entered a drain, but to cover damage caused by water that backed up after entering a drain.”

So basically, the court said that the rainwater has to actually enter the drain, then backup, while a blocked drain that doesn’t allow water to fall down the pipe won’t be covered. Um, ok…. A better rationale would have been that the claim wasn’t covered because maintaining and keeping the drain free of debris was really the responsibility of the insured property owner, not a risk that the insurance company assumed. But I’m not the judge.

This is also the second instance in the last few months where the Court has relied upon the policy’s “anti-concurrent” clause which excluded coverage where  the damage results from the combination of a covered peril and an excluded peril.

Lessons For Property Owners

Aside from making sure catch basins are cleaned, the tough lesson for property owners here is that your supposed “all risk” insurance policy isn’t really “all risk” as you probably perceive it. It seems that these days a lot of insurance claims are denied or insureds are scared of even making a claim lest they get cancelled by the insurance company. It’s a tough predicament.

______________________________________

Richard D. Vetstein, Esq. is an experienced Massachusetts real estate and commercial insurance coverage attorney. For more information, please contact him at 508-620-5352 or [email protected].

{ 0 comments }

Massachusetts High Court To Weigh In On Important Realtor MLS Disclosure Case

by Rich Vetstein on April 26, 2012

in Commercial Real Estate, Disclosures, Massachusetts Real Estate Law, Realtors, Zoning


Realtor Held Liable For Erroneous MLS Information

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has agreed to hear the case of DeWolfe v. Hingham Centre Ltd. which will consider two very important issues for the real estate community, especially agents. The first issue is the scope of a real estate agent’s duty to disclose and independently verify property information posted on the Multiple Listing Service (MLS). The second issue is whether the exculpatory clause found in the Greater Boston Real Estate Board’s standard form purchase and sale agreement legally prohibits a buyer’s misrepresentation claim against the real estate agent.

The case was originally decided by the Appeals Court, and I wrote a full post about it here. The original opinion can be read here.

In summary, the real estate agent, relying on what turned out to be erroneous information supplied by his client, listed a Norwell property on Multiple Listing Service (MLS) and newspaper advertising as “zoned Business B.” The property was not, in fact, zoned for business use; it was zoned residential, thereby prohibiting the hair salon the buyer wanted to open at the property. Despite the general disclaimer on the MLS system and in the purchase and sale agreement, the Appeals Court held that the Realtor could be held liable for misrepresentation and Chapter 93A violations due to providing this erroneous information.

This will be a very important case for the real estate brokerage industry, and we will be monitoring it. Oral arguments are expected to be held in late summer or early fall, with a final ruling coming a few months thereafter.

In the meantime, my advice remains the same:

  • Do not make any representations concerning zoning. Advise the buyer to go to the town/city planner or hire an attorney for a zoning opinion.
  • Never trust your client. I hate to say this, but when it comes to disclosures, it’s true.
  • Always independently verify information about the property from available public sources. Here, the agent could have simply gone down to the town planning office to verify whether the property was zoned commercial or residential. (The buyer or his attorney could have done so as well—this was a complete failure on all sides).
  • When it comes to zoning, which can be complex and variable, think twice before making blanket statements. Better to be 100% sure before going on record about whether certain uses are permissible. You can always get a zoning opinion from a local attorney.

*Hat tip to a new real estate blog on the scene, Disgruntled Neighbors by Attorney Andrew Goldstein, for bringing this to my attention.

~Rich

{ 5 comments }

Commercial Leasing Update: Landlords, You May Have To Wait A Long, Long Time To Collect Unpaid Rent

by Rich Vetstein on March 10, 2012

in Commercial Leasing, Commercial Real Estate, Leasing, Massachusetts Real Estate Law, Real Estate Litigation

Update (5/3/13): SJC Upholds Ruling, Landlords Should Add Rent Acceleration Clause to Leases

Commercial Landlord Must Wait Out 12 Year Lease Term To Recover For Tenant’s Early Termination

In a decision which underscores the importance of careful commercial lease drafting, the Massachusetts Appeals Court has ruled that under a standard form default indemnity provision in a commercial lease, a commercial landlord must wait out the end of a 12 year lease term to recover unpaid rent from a tenant who abandoned the premises in Year 2 of the lease. The practice pointer here is to always have a current acceleration/liquidated damages clause in your commercial lease. See below for some form language.

The case is 275 Washington Street Corp.. vs. Hudson River Int’l, LLC (Mass. Appeals Court March 9, 2012), and is embedded below.

Dental Practice Goes South Quickly

The landlord and tenant entered into a 12-year lease beginning April 13, 2006, and ending April 16, 2018. The premises, located at 221-227 Washington Street in downtown Boston, were intended for use as a dental practice. Within a year of the lease commencement, the dental practice went under and closed. In May 2008, the dentist told the landlord that he would not be making any further lease payments.

Fortunately, the landlord found a new tenant. A new 10 year lease was signed, covering the remainder of the dentist’s term, but at a lower rent. The landlord sued the tenant for the rent differential.

Standard Indemnification Clause

The lease contained a standard default indemnification clause found in many older standard lease forms such as this:

The LESSEE shall indemnify the LESSOR against all loss of rent and other payments which the LESSOR may incur by reason of such termination during the residue of the term.  If the LESSEE shall default, after reasonable notice thereof, in the observance or performance of any conditions or covenant on LESSEE’s part to be observed or performed under or by virtue of any of the provisions in any article of this lease, the LESSOR, without being under any obligation to do so and without thereby waiving such default, may remedy such default for the account and at the expense of the LESSEE.

Indemnity Provision Lacking

The problem is that under Massachusetts law, recovery under an indemnity clause of a lease cannot be had until the specified term of the lease has ended. The reasoning underlying this legal tenet is that such liability is ultimately “contingent upon events thereafter occurring, because the full amount which the lessee eventually must pay for the remainder of the term cannot be wholly ascertained until the period ends.” Although somewhat reluctant, the Court was bound to follow the law in this instance:

We are cognizant of the concerns raised by this long-established rule barring recovery until the end of the original lease, given the possible intervention of factors, presently unknown, that make the determination of damages uncertain at the present. We also recognize the possibility that this rule, which forces this landlord to wait until 2018 to determine post-termination damages, may in effect make it impossible for the landlord to recover its true damages from this corporate tenant or guarantor, because of the protections afforded by legal processes, such as dissolution or bankruptcy. However, given the present state of the law and the specific terms of the contract to which parties of equal bargaining power agreed, we are constrained, nonetheless, to deny recovery to the landlord under the indemnification clause of this lease.

Time To Change The Old Law?

The Appeals Court, especially the concurring opinion of Justice Kantrowitz, suggested that the time may be ripe for the Supreme Judicial Court to re-examine and modernize the law in this area. So look for this case to possibly go up on appeal.

Solution: Acceleration/Liquidated Damages Clause

The lease in this case did not contain the more current acceleration/liquidated damage clause which provides that upon a rent default, all unpaid rent is automatically due through the end of the lease term as liquidated damages. I recommend language such as this to prevent what happened to the landlord in this case:

If LESSEE shall default in the payment of the security deposit, rent, taxes, substantial invoice from LESSOR or LESSOR’s agent for goods and/or services or other sum herein specified, and such default shall continue for ten (10) days after written notice hereof, and, because both parties agree that nonpayment of said sums when due is a substantial breach of the lease, and, because the payment of rent in monthly installments is for the sole benefit and convenience of LESSEE, then in addition to the foregoing remedies the entire balance of rent which is due hereunder shall become immediately due and payable as liquidated damages. The Parties acknowledge and agree that (i) the liquidated damages hereunder is the best estimate of such damages which would accrue to Lessor in the event of Lessee’s default hereunder; (ii) said deposit represents damages and not a penalty against Lessee.

________________________________________________

Richard D. Vetstein, Esq. is an experienced Massachusetts real estate attorney. For more information, please contact him at 508-620-5352 or [email protected].

275 Washington Street Corp v. Hudson River International LLC (Mass. App. Ct.)

{ 0 comments }

Realtor Liable For Failing To Verify Zoning District Of Property Listing

by Rich Vetstein on November 11, 2011

in Commercial Real Estate, Disclosures, Massachusetts Real Estate Law, Realtors, Zoning

Realtors: You Must Independently Verify Property Information

In DeWolfe v. Hingham Centre Ltd. (embedded below), the Massachusetts Appeals Court recently considered a Realtor’s duty to disclose and independently verify zoning information about a listing property.  The agent, relying on what turned out to be erroneous information supplied by his client, listed a Norwell property on Multiple Listing Service (MLS) and newspaper advertising as “zoned Business B.” The property was not in fact zoned for business use; it was zoned residential, thereby prohibiting the hair salon the buyer wanted to open at the property.

Despite the general disclaimer on the MLS system and in the purchase and sale agreement, the Court held that the Realtor could be held liable for misrepresentation and Chapter 93A violations due to providing this erroneous information.

The lesson to be learned for agents here is:

  • Never trust your client. I hate to say this, but when it comes to disclosures, it’s true.
  • Always independently verify information about the property from available public sources. Here, the agent could have simply gone down to the town planning office to verify whether the property was zoned commercial or residential. (The buyer or his attorney could have done so as well—this was a complete failure on all sides).
  • When it comes to zoning, which can be complex and variable, think twice before making blanket statements. Better to be 100% sure before going on record about whether certain uses are permissible. You can always get a zoning opinion from a local attorney.

_______________________________________________

Richard D. Vetstein, Esq. is an experienced real estate attorney who often advises real estate agents on their duties and ethical obligations. Please contact him if you need legal assistance regarding a Massachusetts residential or commercial real estate transaction.

Dewolfe v. Hingham Realty

{ 3 comments }

Court Upholds Oral Handshake Deal In Land Swap

by Rich Vetstein on August 22, 2011

in Commercial Real Estate, Condominium Law, Massachusetts Real Estate Law, Purchase and Sale Agreements, Real Estate Litigation

26297-cooperation-handshakeSeller Couldn’t Sit Back & Watch Construction Project Unfold

Massachusetts appeals judges have been mighty busy this summer issuing real estate decisions. From the forced removal of condo buildings to toxic mold, to foreclosure eviction defense, it’s been no summer vacation in Massachusetts real estate law.

Handed down today is a case right from a first year law school property exam, Hurtubise v. McPherson, embedded below.

As most real estate professionals know, contracts for the sale of real estate must be in writing and signed by the party to be charged, i.e, the seller. This is a rule of law going back to English common law and is called the Statute of Frauds which can be found in the General Laws of Massachusetts, Chapter 259, Section 1. As with most black letter law, there are a few exceptions to the general rule, and this case is a textbook example of the “detrimental reliance” exception to the Statute of Frauds.

Hand-Shake Land Swap Agreement

Here are the facts of the case. Hurtubise and McPherson owned adjoining tracts of land in the town of Templeton. Hurtubise operated a storage business on his property. He wanted to build an additional storage shed along the border between his property and McPherson’s property. Hurtubise realized that he could not meet the setback requirements of the local zoning code unless he acquired land from McPherson. Hurtubise approached McPherson, explained his need, and proposed a land trade, offering to convey to McPherson a portion of the front of his (Hurtubise’s) property in exchange for the portion of McPherson’s land at which Hurtubise intended to erect the new storage shed. McPherson agreed to the proposal and the parties shook hands.

Hurtubise proceeded with his plans for construction of the new building. He obtained a building permit and began to excavate along the border of McPherson’s lot. During the seven to eight weeks of construction, Hurtubise saw McPherson at the site. McPherson never objected to the location of the new building. Hurtubise eventually constructed a 300 x 30-foot storage shed for $39,690.

After construction, McPherson objected and accused Hurtubise of taking more land than he initially had represented. McPherson informed Hurtubise that an exorbitant payment of $250,000 would resolve the dispute which Hurtubise refused to pay. McPherson then notified the town that Hurtubise’s new building encroached on his property. The town’s building commissioner revoked Hurtubise’s building permit and ordered him to cease occupancy of the storage shed. After McPherson threatened to demolish the building, Hurtubise brought suit to enforce the oral agreement.

Exception To Written Contract Rule

As mentioned above, to be enforceable, real estate contracts for the sale of property must be in writing and signed by the seller, at minimum. As Judge Mitchell Sikora wrote in the opinion, “however an equitable qualification puts some flexibility into the joints of the Statute.” An oral agreement for the sale of land can be valid if the party seeking enforcement, in reasonable reliance on the contract and on the continuing assent of the party against whom enforcement is sought, has so changed his position that injustice can be avoided only by specific enforcement. In non-legalese, this means that if you start a construction project and spend thousands of dollars upon the promise of a land deal, albeit not in writing, you may be able to enforce that promise.

Because Hurtubise just sat by idly and watched McPherson construct his shed at considerable cost without objection, the court ruled that he couldn’t then complain there wasn’t a written agreement, in an attempt to wriggle out of the land swap deal. The court then ordered Hurtubise to convey McPherson the land necessary to build the shed.

This case is one of the very few instances where a court has upheld an oral hand-shake real estate agreement. The take-away: make sure your real estate contracts are always in writing and signed!

_______________________________________________________

Richard D. Vetstein, Esq. is an experienced real estate litigation attorney who’s handled numerous real estate contract breach cases in Land Court and Superior Court. Please contact me if you are dealing with a Massachusetts real estate contract legal dispute.

Hurtubise v McPherson Case

{ 2 comments }

Flight to Safety: Massachusetts Commercial Real Estate Market Update

by Rich Vetstein on January 30, 2011

in Commercial Leasing, Commercial Real Estate

A Guest Post By Bryan Gitlin, Managing Partner, Cambridge Capital Advisors

Why Investors Are Actively Pursuing Net-Leased, Investment Grade Commercial Real Estate As A Safe Haven In Today’s Troubled Economic Environment.

The investment community is slowly continuing its recovery from the effects of the sub-prime mortgage crisis as well as the collapse of the CMBS market. At this time, public and private, institutional and non-institutional real estate investors have continued to actively invest in an asset class where the laws of supply and demand are creating CAP rate compression where real estate values across the board have largely depreciated. The genre of commercial assets that is being referred to is comprised of single tenant, net leased, investment grade properties.

Analysis Factors

In acquiring an asset of this nature, the investor typically purchases a fee simple interest in the property. The property, comprised of the land and the structure that sits on top of the land, is leased by a corporate tenant with an investment grade credit rating (S&P rated BBB- or better) on a long term basis. In analyzing the merits of a single tenant, net-lease deal an investor will research and underwrite the strength of the corporate credit that guarantees the lease payments, the terms of the lease and any lease options, the landlord and tenant responsibilities that are enunciated in the lease and the relative strength of the demographics and trade corridor where the property resides. In addition, the investor will look at the intrinsic value and location of the property, the rent that the tenant is paying per square foot and the sales data for the location if available. This analysis is critical in underwriting the viability of the tenant and their ability to successfully operate in the location over the duration of the lease term. The investor will also look at the capitalization rate as a function of determining the rate of return on the investor’s equity in the event that acquisition is made entirely with cash. An investor looking to utilize leverage will also search out financing options if higher returns are mandated by that investor’s acquisition criteria and may also depend upon the amount of equity the investor is looking to place.

Risk Factors

The obvious worst case scenario for an investor in a net lease deal would arise in the event that the tenant abandons the location. This scenario emphasizes the importance of underwriting the tenant’s credit worthiness as the tenant would still be responsible for paying rent through the balance of the term regardless of their occupancy of the real estate. Furthermore, the importance of evaluating the intrinsic value and location of the real estate in addition to the rent being paid by the tenant as a function of whether the rent is in line with the local market is critical in the event that the tenant is ever declared insolvent or adjudged bankrupt as the responsibility of re-letting the building would fall on the property owner. The risk assumed in this absolute worst case scenario is more than offset by conservatively underwriting the tenant and their credit in addition to the overall market demand for the real estate.

Benefits of Asset Class

Furthermore there are a number of reasons why investors looking for higher yields in today’s economic climate are looking to invest in this asset class. Where yields in the stock market, bond market, money market accounts and CD’s have clearly suffered, investors in single tenant net-leased, credit real estate are experiencing returns in the seven to twelve percent range depending upon how the real estate is financed. Considering the non-management intensive nature of ownership, the tax benefits of real estate ownership, and the principal reduction of the debt that is afforded by the tenant in the event that the acquisition is financed, these investments are highly preferential for a wide variety of cash return driven investors including those that are in the process of estate planning.

If you are interested in obtaining further information on investing in single tenant, net-leased, commercial real estate or would like a free consultation/valuation of your investment property, please contact Bryan Gitlin via email (click here) or by telephone at 617-964-1031.

Bryan Gitlin, J.D. has been actively involved in the acquisition, re-development, management, leasing and disposition of commercial real estate since 1998. A founding member of Cambridge Capital Advisors and seasoned investment broker, Mr. Gitlin’s concentration is the acquisition, disposition, underwriting and deal sourcing of investment properties with a primary focus on single-tenant net leased properties and shopping centers nationwide.

{ 1 comment }