Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
What's in a Name? All 'Ground Leases' Are Not the Same
The term “ground lease” may be used in connection with shopping center development in two ways. In some deals, the developer of the shopping center leases the shopping center land from its owner and develops the shopping center on the leased land, building store buildings and leasing space to the actual users (a “development ground lease”). In other cases, the shopping center developer owns the shopping center land and leases an unimproved portion of the shopping center (usually a “pad” or out-parcel) to a tenant who will build its own building on the leased land and operate a business there, such as a fast food restaurant, drug store or bank (a “retail ground lease”).
While both are commonly referred to as a “ground lease,” there are some big differences. If counsel for a shopping center developer who owns fee title to the shopping center land and is going to “ground lease” an out-parcel to a bank uses a form that is a “development ground lease,” the expectations of the client will be thwarted. Just as significantly, if counsel for a tenant who is ground leasing a small pad in a shopping center is familiar only with a “development ground lease,” the tenant will have greatly exaggerated expectations about what the shopping center landlord will agree to in a retail ground lease. The purpose of this article is to look at these two types of ground leases ' development ground leases and retail ground leases ' and see how key issues differ between the two. The article assumes some familiarity on the part of the reader with respect to ground leases in general.
Philosophical Approach
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.