Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The Availability of Self-Help Evictions to Commercial Landlords
A landlord may re-enter leased commercial premises peaceably, without resorting to court process, in those states where it is permitted, if the right to do so is expressly reserved in a commercial lease, either a) upon the tenant's defaulting on the payment of rent or other lease terms, or b) upon termination of the lease or the tenant's abandoning the premises.
This peaceable “self-help” remedy, which is available to commercial landlords in at least 12 states (Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Hawaii, Maryland, Mississippi, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Texas, and Wisconsin), has been recognized at common law from time immemorial. Moreover, wherever it is recognized, the right of peaceable self-help re-entry is not abrogated by the statutory remedy of summary proceedings.
Seven states (Idaho, Massachusetts, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Virginia, and West Virginia) permit a commercial landlord's use of self-help only in cases of abandonment or certain other defined circumstances, but 18 states (Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Washington) and the District of Columbia now prohibit the use of self-help altogether, requiring instead that commercial landlords use only the judicial process to remove tenants in default or those who are otherwise wrongfully in possession. In the remaining 13 states (Colorado, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Nevada, New Hampshire, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, and Wyoming), there are no statutes or reported court decisions prohibiting the commercial use of self-help, and, therefore, the common law remedy may still be available to commercial landlords in those states.
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.