Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Is a Tenant's Option to Purchase Assignable?
Last year, a Missouri appellate court affirmed a lower court's holding that where a lease prohibited a tenant from assigning its interest in the lease without the landlord's consent, the tenant also could not assign an option to purchase the real property the tenant was leasing from the landlord, without the landlord's consent. That court held that a tenant's rights under an option to purchase were a covenant that ran with the land, and that the tenant could not assign those rights without the landlord's consent because the lease limited assignment of the lease generally. Megargel Willbrand & Co., LLC v. Fampat Limited Partnership, No. ED 86570, 2006WL956963 (Mo. Ct. App. Apr. 11, 2006)
The court in the Megargel case treated the lease's limitation on assignment as applying to the option to purchase as well as to the remaining provisions of the lease. In other cases, however, courts have held that an option to purchase is a covenant independent from the lease in which that covenant is contained. See, e.g., Holmes v. Harris, 110 A.2d 329, 334 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1954) (citing other cases). In the case of such treatment, even where a lease contained a limitation on assignment that applied to the lease generally, the tenant's rights under an option to purchase contained within that lease could be freely assigned.
This article discusses the consequences of different interpretations of the assignability of a tenant's option to purchase. These consequences should be considered by tenants, landlords, the successors-in-interest (or potential successors-in-interest) of either of them, and the counsel who advise each of them. The article offers practical tips for how to prepare a lease provision regarding the assignability of rights under an option to purchase in a manner that will clarify the parties' rights and minimize the possibility of a failed exercise of an option to purchase.
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 Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?