Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The Leasing Hotline
BREACH OF GROUND LEASE
A tenant and guarantor may be found liable for breach of a ground lease if the tenant fails to pay construction costs, even where the lease does not specifically provide for construction costs. Highlands Ranch University Park, LLC v. Uno of Highlands Ranch, Inc., Court of Appeals No.: 03CA0724, Court of Appeals of Colorado, Division Five, Jan. 27, 2005.
The landlord and tenant entered into a ground lease in June 2000, whereby the tenant agreed to construct a building on the leased site and lease the premises. In addition, the parent company of the tenant (the guarantor) guaranteed the tenant's obligations under the lease, with a maximum of 2 years of all rent, monies and charges payable under the lease from the time of any default. In December 2000, the tenant advised the landlord that it would not perform under the lease, and the tenant executed an estoppel certificate confirming that even though the tenant was not in possession of the premises, the lease was in full force and effect. The landlord commenced an action for damages, inter alia, and the trial court held that the tenant was liable under the lease. It further held that the guarantor was liable for 2 years worth of costs, including construction costs, even though the guaranty did not specifically provide for construction costs. The only limitation in the agreement regarding the guarantor's liability was a limitation on time.
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 Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.