Use Clauses in Commercial Leasing

It is hardly unusual for tenants to require special licenses to conduct their business, in addition to Certificates of Occupancy and zoning compliance. Bars need liquor licenses from the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission. Banks need licenses from the Texas Department of Banking or similar federal authority. Racetracks require licenses from The Texas Racing Commission. Chiropractors must have licensure from the Texas Board of Chiropractic Examiners.

And so on for surveyors, architects, physicians, veterinarians, engineers, lawyers, dentists, accountants, brokers, medical facilities, pest eradication companies, repair shops using oil or hazardous substances, fuel dispensing, etc.

But what happens when the tenant signs the Lease, and then is unable to secure the license? What if the tenant doesn’t try [very hard] – should the tenant be excused?

Bre Mariner Conway Crossings, LLC, as Landlord, entered into a five-year commercial Lease with Genuinely Loving Childcare, LLC, as tenant. The Lease provided that tenant could use the premises solely for the purpose of operating a child day care center for up to 35 pre-school children.

The target space consisted of 2800 SF in an Orlando shopping center. The Lease further provided that the tenant must use its best efforts to keep the children inside the premises and prevent them from loitering in the common areas.

In Florida, the operation of a child care center that cares for more than five children requires licensure from the Department of Children and Families. The Florida legislature has set minimum standards for licensure, including that the child care center must have at least 45 SF of outdoor play area per child. Drop-in childcare and urban child care centers are exempt.

The urban child care center designation which permits the substitution of indoor play space for outdoor play area, requires written documentation from the local governing body that the area where the child care center is located has been declared urban.

Evidently the Lease was signed at the end of 2013 or beginning of 2014. In January 2014 the Florida Department of Children and Families denied tenant a permanent license because the Department did not believe the child care center was located in an urban area. The Department did, however offer a provisional license with the understanding that an outdoor play area would be required for permanent licensure.

Using the provisional license, Tenant opened the child care center in February 2014. Unable to obtain a permanent license, tenant abandoned the premises in February 2015, only one year into a five-year commercial lease term, when tenant’s provisional license expired and no further renewals were permitted by operation of Florida law.

The landlord sued Genuinely Loving Childcare, LLC and its Guarantors, and obtained a judgment in trial court for eviction and damages. Tenant appealed the damages portion of the award.

The Appellate Court reviewed the evidence and tenant’s affirmative defenses of: (a) impossibility; (b) impracticality; and (c) frustration of purpose. The thread that connects them all is foreseeability at the inception of the Lease. The Court determined that “if a risk was foreseeable at the inception of the lease, then there exists an inference that the risk was either allocated by the contract or was assumed by the party.”

Landlord used that argument to Landlord’s benefit, stating that tenant’s defenses are insufficient because the risk tenant would not obtain a license was foreseen and allocated by the Lease to tenant. However, the Court concluded that the Lease provisions did not explicitly allocate the risk that the Department of Children and Families would deny tenant the urban designation and a permanent license without outdoor play space.

Due to a Lease that is ambiguous on this point, the Appellate Court reversed the final Judgment and dispatched the case to the lower court to determine the intent of the parties regarding the licensure issue.

See Genuinely Loving Childcare, LLC vs. Bre Mariner Crossings, LLC, Case No. 5D15-4168, District Court of Appeal of Florida, 5^th District, January 13, 2017: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9889607525199014198&q=genuinely+loving+childcare+v.+bre+mariner&hl=en&as_sdt=6,44&as_vis=1.  

Lessons learned:

1.      Failure to explicitly allocate the risk of licensure is a common problem in commercial leasing. If a tenant is unable to secure its license, it might assert a position of “frustration of purpose,” meaning that if the tenant cannot open or continue its business due to matters outside of its control, perhaps it should not remain liable for lease obligations.

2.      Landlords, conversely, may insist that Landlord was not operating the business inside the four walls. It’s tenant’s business and there is no one better than tenant to process the applications, overcome objections and secure necessary licensure.

3.      The B/L: In your Lease Agreements provide for not only how the premises will be used, but if it is subject to special licensure to be obtained by tenant and tenant is unable to obtain the license, or perhaps tenant secures the license but not for the duration of the lease term, then also state what happens in those circumstances too. Does the tenant remain liable? For the full remainder of the term? Is there an exit strategy for the tenant where it can terminate the Lease by payment of a set amount?

                                                                                    Stuart A. Lautin, Esq.*

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

Anyone Still Care About Brokerage Commissions?

Michael Neary and St. John’s Holdings, Inc. brought a lawsuit to collect brokerage fees in connection with the sale of eight apartment complexes to Comunidad Corporation. The Contract did not contain a provision regarding brokerage fees. Neary was a licensed real estate broker. SJH was wholly owned by Neary. SJH had assigned his commissions to SJH, but SJH did not hold a corporate brokerage license issued by TREC.

Neary and SJH claimed that a “Term Sheet” plus several email messages constituted a contract. And that the Sellers breached that contract. And as a consequence, that Neary and SJH were entitled to collect brokerage fees.

The Term Sheet was signed. However, immediately above the signature lines is the sentence: “This term sheet is a guideline only, and is not binding [emphasis added].” Various emails did not definitively state the brokerage fee either, as the fee was evidently the subject of hot negotiation.

Doubtless it gave Neary and SJH little comfort when the Dallas Appellate Court wrote that “. . . strict compliance with the [Texas Real Estate License Act] is required; the agreement to pay a real estate commission must be in writing or it is not enforceable.” The Appellate Court then defined the term “not binding” to roughly mean, yes you guessed it correctly, “not binding.”

The Appellate Court determined, much like the trial court, that the Term Sheet and emails represent at most an effort to negotiate an agreement regarding brokerage fees and other matters. As such those documents do not constitute a signed, written memorandum as contemplated by the TRELA.

Owners win. Brokers lose. See Neary and St. John’s Holdings, Inc. v. Mikob Properties, Inc.; 05-09-01175-CV (5th Texas Court of Appeals, Dallas, opinion filed May 9, 2011).

Lessons learned:

1. Texas real estate commission agreements must be in writing.

2. Texas real estate commission agreements must be signed.

3. Texas real estate commission agreements must be in writing and signed.

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

No Contract + No License = No Commission

I have been an attorney for almost 30 years now. During that time I have represented REALTORS®, brokers and sales agents, and their industry trade associations. Although Texas law never changed regarding licensure and contractual requirements, the issue of commissions continues to be litigated in every conceivable way in Texas. Inevitably the results are the same.

Here is the latest case demonstrating the futility of attempting to extract a commission from a party that has not signed a Commission Agreement and disputes a lawful obligation to pay it. In this case, the “broker” did not maintain a license from the Texas Real Estate Commission either.

Expo Motorcars, evidently the purveyor of exotic cars in Houston as I determined from their website (check the 2009 Spyker C8 Spider: http://www.expomc.com/invsys/details2.php?id=8685 which can be yours for only $209,995 + TTL), required more space. Jorge Lujan, sales manager at Expo, contacted Peter Jacobson to find a larger parcel. Lujan introduced Jacobson to Michael Kim, president of Expo, and there may have been an oral agreement that Jacobson would be paid a three percent fee if Expo purchased the property Jacobson located.

Jacobson found a property and started negotiations with the owner. As Lujan and Jacobson were meeting at lunch to develop a letter of intent, Kim called to inform Jacobson that his services were no longer required.

When Jacobson ultimately discovered that Expo had moved to the property Jacobson had located, Jacobson demanded his fee. It wasn’t paid, and a lawsuit resulted.

The Houston trial court awarded Jacobson damages of $45,000, based on a $1.5 million purchase price, attorney’s fees, pre-judgment interest and post-judgment interest. Expo appealed.

The Houston Court of Appeals determined that Jacobson’s actions in attempting to locate suitable real estate for purchase or lease required licensure under the Texas Real Estate License Act, if no statutory exemption was applicable. The Court of Appeals further allowed that the TRELA also required a written contract obligating the defendant to pay a real estate commission or fee.

Mr. Jacobson possessed neither a brokerage license nor a written contract. Since there was no applicable exemption (such as the attorney-exemption), the trial court’s judgment in favor of Mr. Jacobson was reversed and rendered instead for Expo and Michael Kim.

See Expo Holdings, LP v. Jacobson, 2010 WL 3307454 (Houston Court of Appeals – 14th Dist. 2010).

Bottom line:

1. Only brokers may lawfully charge and receive commissions or fees for real estate brokerage activity in Texas, assuming some very narrow exceptions are inapplicable.

2. Brokers may not lawfully collect real estate commissions or fees absent a written contract.

3. BTW it is a Class A misdemeanor in Texas if one acts as a broker or sales agent without appropriate licensure, or exemption from licensure. Check Texas Occupations Code 1101.758.

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