Is a Tenant's Option to Purchase Assignable?
July 31, 2007
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. <i>Megargel Willbrand & Co., LLC v. Fampat Limited Partnership</i>, No. ED 86570, 2006WL956963 (Mo. Ct. App. Apr. 11, 2006)
In the Marketplace
July 31, 2007
Highlights of the latest equipment leasing news from around the country.
The Case for Expert Testimony
July 31, 2007
In equipment leasing industry court cases, one of the challenges lawyers and judges face is simply understanding the nuances and contractual language of the business. That makes credible expert testimony in such legal matters especially critical to winning a case, whether it involves a bank, captive finance company, or independent leasing firm.
Corporate President May Avoid a Personal Guaranty
July 31, 2007
In a recent decision, <i>Cummings Properties, Inc. v. Aspeon Solutions, Inc., et al.</i> (Lawyers Weekly No. 13-019-07), the Massachusetts District Court/Boston Municipal Court Appellate Division affirmed the District Court judge's findings at trial that a defendant could not be held personally liable on a guaranty contained in a commercial real estate lease that the defendant quickly signed in two places before rushing off to the airport to make a flight. This decision was affirmed by the appellate division based on the defense of fraud in the factum.
Support Modification: Overview and Update
July 31, 2007
In the past few years, more requests for modification of a child support obligations, either upward or downward, have been denied than granted. With regard to the cases in which an upward modification was denied, the courts have been reluctant to find that the party seeking to modify the child support obligation has established that any claimed change in circumstances was unanticipated or that the children's needs were not being met.
Lease Financing of Solar Power
July 31, 2007
Hardly a day goes by without major media attention to global warming and the need to develop and invest in sources of alternative energy. Legislation to encourage investment in renewable energy has bipartisan support. Tax legislation passed in 2005 and 2006 extended the renewable energy production tax credit and the energy investment tax credit to facilities placed in service before Jan. 1, 2009. Further extension and expansion of these credits is expected from the current Congress. The extension of the tax credits, the adoption of minimum alternative energy requirements by many states, and greater public and political support for alternative energy resources have increased interest in the development and financing of wind, biomass, geothermal, and solar facilities. An active financing market has developed.
IP News
July 31, 2007
Highlights of the latest intellectual property news from around the country.
Fourth Circuit Affirms Chapter 11 Dismissal
July 30, 2007
The Fourth Circuit, on June 15, 2007, affirmed the dismissal of a Chapter 11 reorganization petition filed by a tenant debtor in a commercial lease dispute. <i>Maryland Port Administration v. Premier Automotive Services, Incorporated (In re Premier Automotive Services, Incorporated).</i> As the Court of Appeals explained, the tenant had filed its Chapter 11 petition 'in order to forestall eviction on an obviously expired lease ' to prevent the [lessor] from evicting the debtor from the [lessor's] property,' seeking to tie up the landlord 'in endless, fruitless litigation.' According to the court, the Chapter 11 filing here 'demonstrate[s], unfortunately, how the good and useful ends of the bankruptcy process can be badly abused.'
Making Sense of Contra Proferentum
June 29, 2007
One traditional rule of contract interpretation is to construe contact terms in appropriate circumstances against the drafter, a concept often referred to as <i>contra proferentum</i>. This doctrine sometimes fits uncomfortably with two other views expressed by American courts. On one hand, many decisions say that insurance contracts are interpreted just like any other commercial contract. <i>See, e.g., Sims v. Mulhearn Funeral Home, Inc.</i>, ___ So.2d ___, (La. 2007); <i>Bear River Ins. Co. v. Williams</i>, 153 P.2d 798, 801 (Utah Ct. App. 2006). On the other hand, some decisions say without qualification that insurance contracts should be construed strictly against the insurer. <i>See, e.g., Carter v. Concord Gen. Mut. Ins. Co.</i>, ___ A.2d ___ (N.H. 2007); <i>Cinergy Corp. v. Associated Elec. & Gas Ins. Servs., Ltd.</i>, 865 N.E.2d 571, 574 (Ind. 2007). And sometimes a single opinion tries to express both at the same time: 'It is well settled that a <i>contract of insurance is no different from any other contract</i> and must be construed in a fair and reasonable manner, having regard to the risk and subject matter of the policy, and that special rules such as liberal construction in favor of the insured and against the insurer who drew the contract apply.' <i>In re New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co.</i>, 833 N.Y.S.2d 182, 183 (App. Div. 2007) (emphasis added).
