Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

The Leasing Hotline

By ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |
October 04, 2005

Tenancy At Will

An unauthorized subtenant that occupies commercial premises without a sublease or assignment may not be liable for rent unless it is determined that such subtenant is a “tenant at will”; such a determination is for the trier of fact and precludes summary judgment. In re: Excel Laminates, Inc., Case No. 01-20190, Chapter 7, U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Kansas, April 12, 2005.

Excel began to occupy premises as an unauthorized subtenant in the landlord's building. The landlord never gave any express written consent for Excel to occupy the premises, as was required by the lease between the landlord and the original tenant. Excel filed for bankruptcy and the landlord filed proofs of claim for rent on the leased premises. The landlord moved for summary judgment, arguing that it was entitled to recover rent from Excel as a matter of law based upon two paragraphs in the lease agreement that existed between it and the original tenant. The trustee objected to the landlord's motion on the ground that Excel was not a named tenant on the lease and that the landlord never consented to Excel's occupancy of the premises. The bankruptcy court denied the motion for summary judgment. It held that the paragraphs cited by the landlord did not entitle the landlord to recover rent from Excel. The language of the lease entitled the landlord to recover only from tenants occupying the premises by virtue of assignment or sublease or other formal transfer; it did not entitle the landlord to recover rent from a mere “occupant” of the premises. The court noted that Excel might be liable for the rent if it were determined that Excel was a “tenant at will” of the entire premises ' an issue of fact that precluded summary judgment.

Tenancy At Will

An unauthorized subtenant that occupies commercial premises without a sublease or assignment may not be liable for rent unless it is determined that such subtenant is a “tenant at will”; such a determination is for the trier of fact and precludes summary judgment. In re: Excel Laminates, Inc., Case No. 01-20190, Chapter 7, U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Kansas, April 12, 2005.

Excel began to occupy premises as an unauthorized subtenant in the landlord's building. The landlord never gave any express written consent for Excel to occupy the premises, as was required by the lease between the landlord and the original tenant. Excel filed for bankruptcy and the landlord filed proofs of claim for rent on the leased premises. The landlord moved for summary judgment, arguing that it was entitled to recover rent from Excel as a matter of law based upon two paragraphs in the lease agreement that existed between it and the original tenant. The trustee objected to the landlord's motion on the ground that Excel was not a named tenant on the lease and that the landlord never consented to Excel's occupancy of the premises. The bankruptcy court denied the motion for summary judgment. It held that the paragraphs cited by the landlord did not entitle the landlord to recover rent from Excel. The language of the lease entitled the landlord to recover only from tenants occupying the premises by virtue of assignment or sublease or other formal transfer; it did not entitle the landlord to recover rent from a mere “occupant” of the premises. The court noted that Excel might be liable for the rent if it were determined that Excel was a “tenant at will” of the entire premises ' an issue of fact that precluded summary judgment.

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • 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

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
'Huguenot LLC v. Megalith Capital Group Fund I, L.P.': A Tutorial On Contract Liability for Real Estate Purchasers Image

In June 2024, the First Department decided Huguenot LLC v. Megalith Capital Group Fund I, L.P., which resolved a question of liability for a group of condominium apartment buyers and in so doing, touched on a wide range of issues about how contracts can obligate purchasers of real property.

Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin Image

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.

CoStar Wins Injunction for Breach-of-Contract Damages In CRE Database Access Lawsuit Image

Latham & Watkins helped the largest U.S. commercial real estate research company prevail in a breach-of-contract dispute in District of Columbia federal court.

Fresh Filings Image

Notable recent court filings in entertainment law.

The Article 8 Opt In Image

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.