This is the first case I have seen on this issue in 30
years. It's a goodie
- with lots of food for thought and creates some need to consider language in a
variety of documents. Some will say that
I like it just because it shows the predominance of Friedman on Leases as
authority. Well, maybe. . .
Daily Development for
By: Patrick A. Randolph, Jr.
Elmer F. Pierson Professor of
Of Counsel: Blackwell Sanders Peper Martin
Kansas City,
prandolph@cctr.umkc.edu
MORTGAGES; LEASEHOLD MORTGAGES; ASSIGNMENTS OF RENTS: Where
leasehold mortgagee has assignment of rents of
sublease rentals, and there is no economic advantage to mortgagor to pay rent
on master lease to maintain value of mortgagor's interest in it, leasehold mortgagee (through foreclosure commissioner) may collect
sublease rents and keep them with priority over master lessor
until master lessor takes action to
"activate" its implied priority claim over such rents, which claim is
based upon mortgagor/sublessor's involvency.
Hawaii National Bank vs. Brian R. Cook, No. 22225, 2002 WL 31297214
(
The complexity of the caption disguises a really intriguing,
though unavoidably complex, little puzzle.
It's worth penetrating.
The problem arose in
The assignments were phrased in the typical "no holds
barred way." The Bank's original
assignment, contained in the mortgage, stated that upon default Bank had the
"immediate right to receive and collect all rents . . .
due or accrued or to become due,
and said rents . . . are hereby assigned
to the Mortgagee." The other lender's assignment stated that,
upon default lender, "at its option" could sue for a receiver, take
possession, or, without taking possession, "demand, sue for or otherwise
collect and receive all rents . . . "
With only two years or so to go on the master lease, and
with the Master Lessor apparently indicating that it
was not planning to renew, the mortgagor became insolvent and stopped paying on
both the mortgages and the master lease, but the sublessees
apparently paid like clockwork.. The Bank sued to
foreclose, and an order of foreclosure issued from the court on Valentine's Day
of 1997. The foreclosure action did not
name Master Lessor as a defendant. Under
It appears that the primary purpose of the foreclosure
action was to formalize the Bank's access to the rents, since the leases, now
with only months to go, and subject to the Master Lessor's
right to terminate for nonpayment of rent even earlier, had virtually no value
at foreclosure auction. The Bank had not
named Master Lessor as a party defendant in the
foreclosure action.
In October of 1997, the Master Lessor
brought an action to terminate the leases and in November it intervened in the
foreclosure action, asking that a receiver be appointed to collect the rents and that these
rents be allocated to it first, as it had an equitable priority in those rents
pursuant to the rule that sublease rentals collected by an insolvent sublessor must first be paid to the master lessor. The Master Lessor's action to terminate the master lease succeeded in
January of 1998, three or four months before it would have expired by its
terms. The $363,000 in rents ultimately collected prior to the formal termination of
the leases exceeded the amount of the master lease arrearages, although they
fell far short of the Bank's million dollar claim. This represents the net collection from July,
1997, until January, 1998. It is not
clear why the court started counting as of July. The Commissioner had been on the land longer,
and had already filed one request for an order of distribution prior to July
1997. The Master Lessor
didn't intervene until November of 1997.
The trial court awarded Master Lessor
the rents it needed to make up the arrearages out of the monies collected by
the Commissioner. On appeal, the
intermediate appeals court affirmed on the grounds that the Commissioner had an
equitable obligation to preserve the estate of the Master Lease for the benefit
of the mortgagors (who apparently were not taking a position in this fight -
they owed everybody). A dissenter pointed
out that there could be no need to preserve the leases, since they effectively
had no value as they were about to expire.
Neither the dissenter or the court points out that the
substantial monies that were accruing might have continued to accrue for
another three or four months - apparently generating a surplus - had the
leases not been terminated for non payment of rent. Perhaps the sublease rent was cyclical and
would not have been payable in the same amounts during the last few months that
were lost.
On appeal to the Hawaii Supreme Court, held, reversed in
part and affirmed in part. The Master Lessor gets the net sublease rents accruing from time of
its intervention in November of 1997 until the termination of the lease.
The court relied heavily on Friedman on Leases for an
analysis of the rights of the Master Lessor to the
sublease rents. It noted that Friedman
cites extensive authority for the proposition that "if the prime tenant is
insolvent the head landlord may resort to the subrents
and has a preference therein ahead of other creditors of the prime tenant - to
the extent necessary to satisfy the prime tenant's liability under the head
lease." This seems to be
something akin to the priority of the purchase money mortgagee.
The court went on to follow Friedman's analysis that the
rights of the Master Lessor are not automatic, but
must be "activated." Friedman
basically analyzes this issue only in the context of a formal provision for a
lien right on the sublease revenues created by the master tenant in favor of
the master lessor.
But the court applies the same analysis here, where there was no such
formal lien or assignment. It concludes
that the issue should be treated analogously to the question of the validity of
a claim of a rents assignee in a mortgage.
Typically, even notwithstanding language for "automatic"
attachment of the claim to the rents upon default, courts have held that the mortgagee/assignee must take some action to activate (the
court uses the somewhat discredited term "perfect") the assigment before its priority claim actually takes effect.
The Hawaii court acknowledges that a few American courts
have given effect to language in a rents assignment that purports to
"automatically" vest the mortgagee with the
accruing rents upon the execution of the mortgage, subject only to the
conditional collection by the mortgagor until default, but it indicates that
Hawaii has never ruled on the question, and the lien theory of mortgages in
Hawaii would appear to support in general the recognition of the rights of the mortgagor's
interests in the rents for as long as possible.
"Absolute assignments are generally disfavored in lien theory
jurisdictions." (Quoting
from Thompson on Real Property (Thomas Edition).
The court concluded that it agreed that "public policy
weighs against construing assignment of rents clauses as absolute assignments
absent a clear indication that the parties intended to create one." Consequently, where, as here, there is no
language expressing the rights of the Master Lessor
at all in the master lease, and the Master Lessor's
rights are based purely on equity, the Master Lessor
had to have taken some action to activate its interest. It did so, the court held, when it intervened
in the foreclosure action in November of 1997, and therefore the pro rata share
of the net rents that covers the period from November 1997 until January
1998 should be paid over to it.
The court apparently agreed with the dissenting judge below
that the Master Lessor had no claim to rents based
upon the argument that the Commissioner had a duty to preserve the master
lease. The court acknowledged that this
was an unusual case in this regard, since without a potential extension of the
ground lease, it had no marketable value. (Again, the court
does not mention rents that might have accrued from January to April, 1998 when
the lease term would have expired).
As a final argument, the court notes that the Master Lessor got the benefit of restoration of possession of the
property through its action to terminate, and thus got "full benefit"
of the lease rights when it also collected the rent. It stated that "this can hardly be
called fair, just and equitable," where the Bank got only around $100,000
to be applied to its million dollar deficiency.
Comment 1: Taking the last first, the court's closing
comments are mysterious to those of us who aren't aware of the rents situation
for the last three or four months of the lease.
Perhaps the sublease revenues terminated on January,
1998, regardless of whether the master lease had continued. We just don't know.
In any event, surely this case cannot be about what is
"fair just and equitable."
These parties were all "players," and they were entitled to
get exactly what their documents and their legal positions gave them, no more
and no less.
Comment 2: The Editor has weighed in quite a bit in past law
review articles about the appropriate characterization of the mortgagee's interest in an assignment of rents. In virtually every case, the parties, in
fact, intend an arrangement that is a collateral assignment, not a present
assignment. The Editor not only agrees
with the
Comment 3: Because landlords under master leases are not in privity of estate with subtenants, in general they have no claim for the rents. But they do have the right to reach the rents, under established authority, when they have been collected for period in which the master tenant/sublandlord is not paying the rent on the master lease. It does seem equitable that if the possession conferred by the master lease is creating these revenues, that the master lessor (and its creditors) should not enjoy the benefit of these revenues without paying the cost. Of course, these rights can be disclaimed, and perhaps tough minded mortgagees will see that they are so disclaimed in the future, but the result seems appropriate as a "default construction" of the parties' relationships.
Readers are urged to respond, comment, and
argue with the daily development or the editor's comments about it.
Items in the Daily Development section
generally are extracted from the Quarterly Report on Developments in Real
Estate Law, published by the ABA Section on Real Property, Probate & Trust
Law. Subscriptions to the Quarterly Report are available to Section members
only. The cost is nominal. For the last six years, these Reports have been
collated, updated, indexed and bound into an Annual Survey of Developments in
Real Estate Law, volumes 1‑6, published by the ABA Press. The Annual
Survey volumes are available for sale to the public. For the Report or the
Survey, contact Maria Tabor at the
Items reported here and in the
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 ‑
10 messages per workday.
Daily Developments are posted every workday.
To subscribe to Dirt, send an e-mail to:
|
To: |
ListServ@listserv.umkc.edu |
|
Subject: |
[Does not matter] |
|
Text in body of message |
Subscribe Dirt [your name] |
To cancel your subscription to Dirt, send an
e-mail to:
|
To: |
ListServ@listserv.umkc.edu |
|
Subject: |
[Does not matter] |
|
Text in body of message |
Signoff Dirt |
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 an e-mail to:
|
To: |
ListServ@listserv.umkc.edu |
|
Subject: |
[Does not matter] |
|
Text in body of message |
Subscribe Brokerdirt [your name] |
To cancel your subscription to Brokerdirt, send an e-mail to:
|
To: |
ListServ@listserv.umkc.edu |
|
Subject: |
[Does not matter] |
|
Text in body of message |
Signoff Brokerdirt |
DIRT is a service of the American Bar
Association Section on Real Property, Probate & Trust Law and the
DIRT has a WebPage at: http://www.umkc.edu/dirt/