Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
In the Spotlight: Outparcel Leasing and Sales ' Concepts to Consider
When leasing or selling parcels of property that are located outside of an enclosed shopping center but within the perimeter of the shopping center property (eg, along the interior road of the shopping center, along the peripheral boundary of the shopping center, or along shared parking fields of a shopping center), a landlord should consider several concepts that may not be considered critical issues when leasing in-line space. However, for purposes of leasing or selling outparcel locations, these concepts are not only financially important to the landlord, but also will impact the day-to-day operations of a shopping center. These concepts include parking, insurance/casualty, maintenance and repair, and signage.
Parking
Often when leasing or selling an outparcel, the tenant or purchaser requires that a certain number of parking spaces also be designated or set aside for exclusive use by the outparcel. Further, the tenant or purchaser will want to designate by signage or otherwise the particular parking field that is set aside for customers of that particular outparcel. Several factors may impact the decision of the landlord to designate parking spaces for a particular outparcel. In particular, the proximity of the outparcel to adjacent tenants that have a heavy parking use (eg, restaurants, movie theaters, etc.), restrictions imposed by reciprocal easement agreements or covenants of record relating to the establishment at the shopping center of tenant-specific parking fields, and governmental restrictions mandating the necessity that a certain number of parking spaces be used by the entire shopping center, may need to be considered before specific parking spaces are allocated to a specific outparcel.
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.