Daily Development for Wednesday, March 24, 2004
by: Patrick A. Randolph, Jr.
Elmer F. Pierson Professor of Law
UMKC School of Law
Of Counsel: Blackwell Sanders Peper Martin Kansas City, Missouri dirt@umkc.edu
LANDLORD/TENANT; ESTOPPEL CERTIFICATES; CONFLICTS WITH INCORPORATED AGREEMENT:
Where estoppel certificate signed by tenant indicates that tenant has no renewal
options, but it refers to lease in which such options are set forth, an
ambiguity arises that will be resolved by construing against the party in a
position to avoid the ambiguity - in this case the party drafting both the lease
and the certificate.
Miner v. Tustin Ave. Investors,10 Cal Rptr. 3d 178 (Cal. App. 2004) (this case
was also the subject of the DD for March 23)
Tenant’s lease had a contemporaneously executed addendum that contained a right
of renewal. It also contained an obligation on the part of tenant to execute an
estoppel certificate upon request. Later, landlord sold the landlord’s interest
to another party, and in connection with that transfer tenant executed a form
estoppel certificate, selected by landlord, that contained a paragraph stating
that there were no renewal or extension rights except as set forth below. There
followed a series of blank lines, apparently intended for listing specific
renewal or extension rights. In the version signed by tenant, these lines were
left blank.
Of course, when renewal time came and tenant sent timely notice, the successor
landlord refused to honor the renewal, taking the position that the estoppel
certificate modified the renewal rights in the lease, even though the landlord
had knowledge at the time of the original transfer and certificate that the
lease contained a renewal right. Tenant argued that, since everyone knew of its
renewal right in the lease, the certificate language was designed to elicit a
statement of rights other than those contained in the lease.
The court pointed out that it is quite common for there to be post execution
agreements between landlords and tenants about lots of things, including
extensions and renewals, and that it would be quite common for the parties to
use an estoppel certificate to preclude any possibility that the transferee of
the estate would be viewed as on inquiry notice of those rights. Therefore, the
tenant’s argument made some sense, although, of course, the literal language of
the estoppel certificate operated against it.
To get around the literal language, the court concluded that, under the
circumstances, the language was ambiguous, and then stated that ambiguity was to
be interpreted against the landlord. Here, since the landlord’s predecessor
drafted both the certificate and the lease, the court concluded that the
ambiguity should be resolved in favor of the tenant’s construction.
Comment: Is it fair to saddle the transferee with an ambiguity created by the
landlord? As between the assignee and the tenant, isn’t the tenant in the best
position to clarify the ambiguity? How would you read this certificate if you
received it? Would you think that it might be a good idea to mention the renewal
rights in the blank lines?
On the other hand, if you were the transferee, and received this certificate
with the lines blank, would you feel you were justified in concluding that the
parties had cancelled the express renewal option set forth in a lease addendum
that you had read?
If, indeed, each side had a good faith believe in its position, then we indeed
have a muddle. The editor believes that the court was of the view that the
tenant in fact was confused but that the transferee knew very well that the
tenant expected to be able to execute the renewal. The editor suspects the same
thing.
Items reported here and in the ABA publications are for general information
purposes only and should not be relied upon in the course of representation or
in the forming of decisions in legal matters. The same is true of all commentary
provided by contributors to the DIRT list. Accuracy of data and opinions
expressed are the sole responsibility of the DIRT editor and are in no sense the
publication of the ABA.
Parties posting messages to DIRT are posting to a source that is readily
accessible by members of the general public, and should take that fact into
account in evaluating confidentiality issues.
ABOUT DIRT:
DIRT is an internet discussion group for serious real estate professionals.
Message volume varies, but commonly runs 5 15 messages per work day.
Daily Developments are posted every work day. To subscribe, send the message
subscribe Dirt [your name]
to
listserv@listserv.umkc.edu
To cancel your subscription, send the message signoff DIRT to the address:
listserv@listserv.umkc.edu
for information on other commands, send the message Help to the listserv
address.
DIRT has an alternate, more extensive coverage that includes not only commercial
and general real estate matters but also focuses specifically upon residential
real estate matters. Because real estate brokers generally find this service
more valuable, it is named “BrokerDIRT.” But residential specialist attorneys,
title insurers, lenders and others interested in the residential market will
want to subscribe to this alternative list. If you subscribe to BrokerDIRT, it
is not necessary also to subscribe to DIRT, as BrokerDIRT carries all DIRT
traffic in addition to the residential discussions.
To subscribe to BrokerDIRT, send the message
subscribe BrokerDIRT [your name]
to
listserv@listserv.umkc.edu
To cancel your subscription to BrokerDIRT, send the message signoff BrokerDIRT
to the address:
listserv@listserv.umkc.edu
DIRT is a service of the American Bar Association Section on Real Property,
Probate & Trust Law and the University of Missouri, Kansas City, School of Law.
Daily Developments are copyrighted by Patrick A. Randolph, Jr., Professor of
Law, UMKC School of Law, but Professor Randolph grants permission for copying or
distribution of Daily Developments for educational purposes, including
professional continuing education, provided that no charge is imposed for such
distribution and that appropriate credit is given to Professor Randolph, DIRT,
and its sponsors.
DIRT has a WebPage at:
http://cctr.umkc.edu/dept/dirt/
-----
To be removed from this mailing list, send an email message to listserv@listserv.umkc.edu
with the text SIGNOFF DIRT.
Please email manager@listserv.umkc.edu if you run into any problems.
See <http://www.umkc.edu/is/cs/listserv/unsubscribing.htm> for more information.