Recently, Gross & Romanick assisted a client with terminating his residential lease and helped him obtain monetary damages due to mold in the rental apartment.
After receiving the check the client wrote to the firm to say: “Thank you so much for your help. I am very happy with the way this all turned out and the way you handled my case. I will use you in the future if I need a lawyer”.
For more information about how the attorneys at Gross & Romanick can help you with traffic offenses and criminal law, personal injury & wrongful death, or business law & commercial landlord cases, call 703-273-1400 or fill out their online Information Request form now.
Showing posts with label commercial landlord lawyer virginia. Show all posts
Showing posts with label commercial landlord lawyer virginia. Show all posts
Monday, November 2, 2009
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Commercial Landlord Practice Area
Commercial landlords need legal assistance from experienced lawyers who understand this area of the law as well as their business concerns. Leasing to tenants at a shopping center, office building, warehouse or other commercial facility involves issues from lease interpretation to collection of unpaid rent. Property managers and leasing brokers depend upon our advice for management decisions, contract language and eviction.
Gross & Romanick represents many of the largest commercial landlords in the Washington DC area, as well as a national REIT. We pride ourselves on taking a practical, business approach to resolving tenant problems. Whether the property manager is new at the job or hardened by the battle, our attorneys can help them with the difficult task of retaining good tenants, enforcing the rules, and collecting rents.
We handle:
- the lease & other agreements
- evictions
- self-help
- bankruptcy
- litigation
For more information about our commercial landlord arm, or to speak to an attorney, contact Gross & Romanick by calling (703) 273-1400.
Monday, March 2, 2009
Accelerated Rent: Dead or Alive
Can businesses negotiate uncertain damages?
In tenBraak v. Waffle Shops, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the proposition that commercial leases could provide for the recovery of future rents even though such recovery was not available under the common law. It seemed the attitude of the court was to permit businesses to negotiate their respective default rights. After all, the actual losses to the landlord when the default takes place are very difficult to determine, and the landlord should not have to spend a lot of money litigating damages when the parties have agreed to a formula. When the Virginia Supreme Court addressed several cases involving acceleration provisions in commercial leases, they upheld by implication the principle that these clauses were enforceable. Unfortunately, no case on appeal has clearly and unequivocally found that these clauses can be enforced, even if the amount required to be paid would exceed the actual damages suffered by the Landlord.
Are acceleration damages a penalty?
In the Fairfax County Circuit Court case of Teachers Retirement Sys. v. American Title Guar., Judge Thomas S. Kenny struck down an acceleration clause as unenforceable because "it calls for damages in excess of Plaintiff's actual damages." Judge Kenny under the facts of the case deemed the acceleration sums sought to be a "potential windfall" and an "unenforceable penalty." Judge Kenny indicated that the landlord's actual damages was the difference between the amount that should have been paid by the tenant and the amount of rent actually collected if the premises is relet, plus cost associated with reletting. However, the lease was so poorly drafted that Judge Kenny declined to rewrite the lease in order to provide some amount for future losses caused by the default. Thus, the landlord received no award for future damages.
Practical Advice
Mandatory acceleration provisions or damages grossly in excess of actual losses will be problematic. The remedies portion of the Lease needs to be carefully crafted to permit the landlord several options in the event of default. If the losses will be uncertain and difficult to ascertain, then the entire lease should support the proposition that an advance stipulation of damages is needed. The Lease could contain a provision which requires an independent appraiser to set the amount of damages, whose decision would be difficult to dispute.
When attempting to obtain a judgment after default, the landlord should calculate realistic actual and projected losses. If such a calculation is not possible, it may be better to utilize Virginia Code §8.01-128 which permits a landlord to evict a tenant without losing the right to recover for any later deficiency in rent after making an effort to minimize the damages by renting to another tenant; under this statute a landlord can come back to court for later judgments as the damages accrue.
Final Advice
The above is not meant to replace legal counsel. Have a Landlord/Tenant lawyer draft or review all commercial leases. To speak to an attorney, please contact Gross & Romanick directly by calling 703-273-1400 or filling out their online form.
In tenBraak v. Waffle Shops, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the proposition that commercial leases could provide for the recovery of future rents even though such recovery was not available under the common law. It seemed the attitude of the court was to permit businesses to negotiate their respective default rights. After all, the actual losses to the landlord when the default takes place are very difficult to determine, and the landlord should not have to spend a lot of money litigating damages when the parties have agreed to a formula. When the Virginia Supreme Court addressed several cases involving acceleration provisions in commercial leases, they upheld by implication the principle that these clauses were enforceable. Unfortunately, no case on appeal has clearly and unequivocally found that these clauses can be enforced, even if the amount required to be paid would exceed the actual damages suffered by the Landlord.
Are acceleration damages a penalty?
In the Fairfax County Circuit Court case of Teachers Retirement Sys. v. American Title Guar., Judge Thomas S. Kenny struck down an acceleration clause as unenforceable because "it calls for damages in excess of Plaintiff's actual damages." Judge Kenny under the facts of the case deemed the acceleration sums sought to be a "potential windfall" and an "unenforceable penalty." Judge Kenny indicated that the landlord's actual damages was the difference between the amount that should have been paid by the tenant and the amount of rent actually collected if the premises is relet, plus cost associated with reletting. However, the lease was so poorly drafted that Judge Kenny declined to rewrite the lease in order to provide some amount for future losses caused by the default. Thus, the landlord received no award for future damages.
Practical Advice
Mandatory acceleration provisions or damages grossly in excess of actual losses will be problematic. The remedies portion of the Lease needs to be carefully crafted to permit the landlord several options in the event of default. If the losses will be uncertain and difficult to ascertain, then the entire lease should support the proposition that an advance stipulation of damages is needed. The Lease could contain a provision which requires an independent appraiser to set the amount of damages, whose decision would be difficult to dispute.
When attempting to obtain a judgment after default, the landlord should calculate realistic actual and projected losses. If such a calculation is not possible, it may be better to utilize Virginia Code §8.01-128 which permits a landlord to evict a tenant without losing the right to recover for any later deficiency in rent after making an effort to minimize the damages by renting to another tenant; under this statute a landlord can come back to court for later judgments as the damages accrue.
Final Advice
The above is not meant to replace legal counsel. Have a Landlord/Tenant lawyer draft or review all commercial leases. To speak to an attorney, please contact Gross & Romanick directly by calling 703-273-1400 or filling out their online form.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Security Deposit Treatment in Bankruptcy
What happens to a tenant's security deposit after the tenant files bankruptcy? If rent is owned, can the landlord apply the deposit to unpaid rent?
An informal poll of area Bankruptcy Lawyers reveals a belief that a security deposit can be used as a set- off against both pre-petition damages and lease termination damages under Section 553 of the Bankruptcy Code. The set off is subject to mitigation by the landlord, including releting the premises. The safest process is to have a court grant relief from stay before applying the security deposit; but this procedure may cause a debtor to file an objection. Right or wrong, most Landlords simply keep the deposit.
Some attorneys also argued that Landlord can assert a "secured claim" up to the amount of the security deposit.
For more information or to consult with one of Gross & Romanick's Commercial Landlord lawyers, please contact us directly by e-mailing law@gross.com or by calling 703-273-1400.
An informal poll of area Bankruptcy Lawyers reveals a belief that a security deposit can be used as a set- off against both pre-petition damages and lease termination damages under Section 553 of the Bankruptcy Code. The set off is subject to mitigation by the landlord, including releting the premises. The safest process is to have a court grant relief from stay before applying the security deposit; but this procedure may cause a debtor to file an objection. Right or wrong, most Landlords simply keep the deposit.
Some attorneys also argued that Landlord can assert a "secured claim" up to the amount of the security deposit.
For more information or to consult with one of Gross & Romanick's Commercial Landlord lawyers, please contact us directly by e-mailing law@gross.com or by calling 703-273-1400.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)