Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Tenant's Estoppel Letter Does Not Trump the Lease
An “estoppel certificate” is a written statement by a party having an interest in property that defines and describes that interest so that other parties contemplating taking an interest in the same property will be informed about the nature and extent of that interest. Typically, the party signing the certificate is not a party to the transaction by which the third party is acquiring its interest. But the certificate is worded in such a way so that the party signing it is made aware of the reliance of the third party, and thus the signing party would be “estopped” from asserting matters different from those appearing in the certificate as against the third party upon completion of the transaction.
A recent California case highlights the unreliability of tenant estoppel letters. Frequently, purchasers and lenders will condition their deals on receiving tenant estoppel letters setting forth the lease terms. These third parties often rely on the accuracy of certificates in the process of closing their deals. What happens, however, if a tenant does not fully or accurately complete a tenant estoppel certificate and, therefore, provides misleading information about a lease? Will the tenant be bound by the certificate, or will the tenant be able to avoid that and invoke its rights under the terms of the lease?
In the case of Miner v. Tustin Ave. Investor, 10 Cal. Rptr. 3d 178 (Cal. App. 2004) an estoppel certificate signed by the tenant indicated that the tenant had no renewal options, but it referred to the lease that contained those options. In that case, the court held that the actual lease trumped the estoppel certificate, and therefore, the purchaser was bound by the renewal options.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?