Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
In attempts to alleviate the impact of job losses and business disruption due to COVID-19, state and local governments have passed emergency orders and regulations temporarily prohibiting evictions and extending deadlines to pay rent, among other restrictions. When those restrictions are lifted, there is no guarantee that they will have done more than delay the inevitable: eviction and bankruptcy. Modifications should be used to cut risk and losses. If at all possible, landlords and tenants should cooperate now to avoid that outcome.
It is important to note that eviction moratoria and related restrictions differ across states, counties, cities and regions. While city and local jurisdictions seek to employ their state's guidelines, they often take it a step or two further, or not far enough, based on local conditions, which can be impacted by politics and lobbying. New law, rules and ordinances are not relieving any tenants of rent liability, but rather merely extending the tenant's time to pay. Thus, unless a lease provides for rent abatement under these particular conditions, the burden of the pandemic is still left squarely on tenants' shoulders. Few, if any, leases shift the financial burden of the pandemic shut down to the landlord. Few, if any, insurance policies insure against pandemic shutdowns. However, although contractually it appears that landlords will not bear the burden of the shutdown, in fact many will lose a lot due to necessary evictions, vacancies, and the probability of a more competitive rental market and tenant insolvencies.
Tenants and landlords should be proactive and cooperative in strategizing solutions to minimize financial ruin on both sides, regardless of what the lease says. Tenants should be transparent and forthcoming with information that the landlord should consider in deciding on lease modification requests and terms. Hopefully, the landlord will be reasonable, empathetic and cooperative. If not, tenants still have options. For example, tenants can form alliances with other tenants of the same landlord, lobby politicians and, as a last resort, file bankruptcy to reorganize the debts. Whether you are a landlord or a tenant, the first step in the negotiation process is to know the laws that apply to you and make sure you meet the requirements in those laws.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
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
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 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.
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.
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.
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?