Closing Extension SNAFU

On January 28, 2013, KIT Projects entered into a Contract to purchase real estate from PLT Partnership. Closing was initially scheduled for March 26, 2013. Then it was extended two days to March 28, 2013.
 
On March 28 Buyer did not have the funds to close, so Buyer asked Seller for an extension – until April 30, 2013. Both Seller and Buyer signed and delivered an extension Amendment. It provides “In consideration for this 30 day extension, Buyer agrees to pay an additional $10,000 extension fee directly to [Seller]. This fee is non-refundable and not applicable to the sales price.”

A check was delivered to Seller on March 28. Also delivered was a suggestion that the check was not good. So Seller told Buyer that the check could be held for a few days, to give Buyer an opportunity to fund the check.

The check was deposited on April 3. Seller signed the Amendment on April 4. The check bounced on April 8. Buyer never replaced the check with good funds, although Buyer offered to do so on April 9. 

In the afternoon of April 9 Seller delivered to Buyer a letter by email stating that “there is no existing contractual agreement” between the two parties.

Buyer asserted a lawsuit to force Seller to honor the terms of the Contract and sell the property to Buyer. Seller denied that it had breached the Contract, claiming that Seller had the right to terminate the Contract since the $10k check bounced. The trial court agreed with Seller.

Buyer appealed.

On appeal, Buyer asserted that the consideration for the amendment was Buyer’s promise to pay the $10k extension fee. Seller asserted that the consideration was the $10k payment. The difference in Texas law, is a covenant vs. a condition.

The Court of Appeals recast Seller’s argument as an assertion that the payment was a condition to the extension of the closing date. We call this a condition precedent in law.

To determine if a condition precedent existed, the Court looked hard at the amendment for terms such as provided that, on condition that, if _______, then ________ and similar.
 
If no such language is used, the terms will typically be a covenant. Not a condition. When a covenant is breached, the contract is valid but a party has a claim or lawsuit for damages. When a condition is breached, the entire contract may be forfeited.

Courts do not favor conditions as they tend to have unintended and overly harsh consequences.

This Court of Appeals had little difficulty determining that the language used was indicative of a covenant, not a condition. And yes there was still ample consideration although the check failed, as consideration “. . . may consist of a benefit to one party or of a detriment to the other party.”

The Court concluded that the consideration for the extension of the closing date was Buyer’s agreement to pay, rather than Buyer’s tender of lawful payment. The Judgment of the trial court is reversed. The case is remanded back to the trial court for a do-over, but with instructions to the trial court that the Amendment did not fail just because Buyer’s check was rubber.

See KIT Projects, LLC v. PLT Partnership; Cause No. 14-14-00118-CV; Texas Court of Appeals; 14^th District; November 19, 2015.

            Lessons learned:

1.      If the parties intend to be allowed to terminate a Contract based on non-performance, there must be consistent provisions.

2.      Typically a Seller or Landlord will prefer a condition for the Buyer or Tenant’s obligations, and a covenant for the Seller or Landlord’s duties. And of course vice versa when you are representing a Buyer or Tenant.

3.      Still confused? You are not alone. Be sure your principal has an experienced Texas real estate attorney who knows the difference.

 Reprinted with the permission of North Texas Commercial Association of REALTORS®, Inc.

Fun with Percentage Rental Clauses

In 1993, Ralphs Grocery Company signed a 20-40 year lease with Midtown Shopping Center Associates for 53,000 square feet in a Los Angeles shopping center. Under the lease, Ralphs is required to pay an annual base rental rate of almost $1 million per year, plus 1.25% of gross sales over $31 million.

The lease defines “gross sales” as the amount of the sales price, whether or not for cash or upon credit, of all merchandise and goods, and the charges for services sold on or delivered from the shopping center property. The lease excludes 15 items from gross sales, including sales tax, deposits on returned items, refunds and credits for defective items, sales from other stores, interest and credit card charges, sales from lottery tickets and coin-operated devices, coupons, commercial sales of scrap materials and bulk sales consisting of inventory, fixtures and equipment.

Also excluded are “. . . discounts allowed to any customer pursuant to any customary and reasonable policy adopted by Ralphs . . .”

Ralphs created a Rewards program in 1997 intended to encourage and reward customer loyalty. In this program, Ralphs charges two prices for merchandise: (1) a higher price paid by customers who do not participate in the Rewards program; and (2) a lower price paid by customers who sign up for the customer loyalty program.
 
Paper transaction receipts generated at the check-out stand detail what Rewards customers would have been charged without the program discounts, and calculates their “savings.” The program has been quite successful: transactions by Rewards customers account for 97% of all transactions at Ralphs.

Ralphs provided Midtown yearly statements reflecting what it believed constituted “gross sales” from the Midtown store, using the amount Rewards customers actually paid rather than the amount they would have paid for the same items had they not participated in the loyalty program. When Midtown expressed its view that Ralphs was under-reporting “gross sales” by excluding the amounts Rewards customers could have been charged, Ralphs filed a lawsuit against Midtown.

The trial court concluded that “gross sales” was based on sales prices Rewards customers would have paid absent the program discounts. Accordingly, the court awarded Midtown $305,000.

Ralphs appealed.

The Court of Appeals determined that a reasonable, fair and just definition of “gross sales” is one that looks to the amounts Ralphs actually charges its customers, as opposed to the hypothetical amount Ralphs opts not to charge them.

The Court of Appeals also found that the Rewards program is a discount pursuant to a “customary and reasonable policy” adopted by Ralphs, as specifically contemplated by the lease even though it was created four years after the lease was signed.
        

The Judgment of the trial court is reversed. The term “gross sales” in the Ralphs – Midtown lease does not include amounts Ralphs never charged its Rewards customers. Consequently, Ralphs owes no additional rental.

See Ralphs Grocery Company v. Midtown Shopping Center Associates; No. B252292; California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Two; June 17, 2015.

Lesson learned: It is difficult in commercial leasing to anticipate every issue that will occur over a 20 or 40 year lease term. Gross sales clauses are constantly being  probed and tested, as are CAM triple-net pass-through clauses of taxes since Texas franchise and margin taxes didn’t exist seven years ago. Be extra careful when you are addressing percentage-of-gross-sales and expense reimbursement provisions.

 

Reprinted with the permission of North Texas Commercial Association of REALTORS®, Inc.

Jumpin' Jack's Party Shack

In 2006 Jim and Jeneane Cremer formed Jumpin’ Jack’s Party Shack, Inc., to operate a children’s party center. The Cremers found a warehouse in Tyler owned by Morris Hallman, and signed a four year lease.

The leased premises consisted of a 20 x 20 foot sheet metal over steel frame air-conditioned office, with an attached 50 x 80 foot warehouse structure. The warehouse portion was not air conditioned, and contained only a bare concrete floor and open-air roof extension. It had been previously used as a car wash bay.

The Cremers spent $36,950 for dirt work, concrete and materials to make a 50 x 50 foot warehouse extension and enclose it. Also the Cremers expended another $115,000 to install six air conditioning units, HVAC duct work, lighting, plumbing, toilets, cabinets, party rooms and more offices.

In December 2010 – the end of the lease term – the Cremers removed the six air conditioning units, HVAC ducts, lighting, kitchen and bathroom fixtures, doors, door jambs, insulation, electrical wiring and sheetrock as they vacated the buildings. All of those components had been installed by the Cremers after the beginning of the lease term.

Morris Hallman was not pleased and sued the Cremers. Hallman’s position was that the Cremers had no right to remove valuable improvements, and by doing so, Hallman was substantially damaged.

The trial court ruled for Hallman, finding that in the lease agreement “. . . the parties expressly agreed that at the expiration of the lease, improvements to the property made by lessees . . . belonged to lessor, Morris L. Hallman, and were to be returned to the lessor by the lessees in good operation condition.”

The trial court awarded Hallman damages of $67,339. Cremers appealed.

The Appellate Court took a hard look at the 2006 lease, particularly focusing on the obligation of the tenants to repair everything the tenants installed, modified, replaced or added. Otherwise, if the landlord had installed it (meaning: it was in the buildings when the Cremers received the keys), then it was the landlord’s obligation to repair and maintain.

Due to procedural issues, the argument that Cremers installed trade fixtures into the buildings which became permanently annexed and incorporated into the real estate, was not litigated. Presumably the outcome might have been different.

But – based on the pleadings before the Court of Appeals – Cremers win; Hallman loses. Cremers had the right to remove the improvements they installed, much to Hallman’s disappointment and financial loss, as the Court of Appeals concluded that the trial court had not properly analyzed the 2006 lease agreement.

See Cremers v. Hallman; No. 06-13-00011-CV; Texas 6^th Court of Appeals, May 16, 2013.

Lessons learned:

1.      Commercial leasing is inordinately difficult. Purchase and Sale Agreements are easier. Leasing is like a marriage. Sometimes a beautiful partnership is formed. Other times not so much.

2.      Don’t assume that the lease form you are using contains all the concepts that are important to you, the landlord and the tenant. Or the lenders financing the project or tenant’s leasehold interest. Even the ‘boilerplate’ clauses can be incomplete, confusing, or MIA.

3.      It’s unfortunate this Texas Appellate Court did not fully address the issue of trade fixtures and permanent annexation into the realty. But, regardless, if it’s important to you then be sure it is properly stated in your lease!


Reprinted with the permission of North Texas Commercial Association of REALTORS®, Inc.