Daily Development for
Thursday, February 13, 1997

by: Patrick A. Randolph, Jr.
Professor of Law
UMKC School of Law

LANDLORD/TENANT; SUBLEASES; EQUITABLE MORTGAGE: Where seller of business located on certain leased property subleases the business property to purchaser, and the promissory note executed in connection with the sale of the business provides that a default under the note is a default under the sublease, the transaction does not constitute a secured transaction, but rather a true sublease, and sublessor is entitled to maintain a summary proceeding under the New York landlord/tenant laws.

Salmat Pizza Enterprises v. Dezzara Restaurant Corp., 643 N.Y.S.2d 890 (Civ. Ct. 1996).

The deal was set up as a sublease until such time as the promissory note was paid, at which time there was an assignment of the balance of the sublandlord's interest to the subtenant. Until the note was paid, the arrangement between the parties was structured as a classic sublease, with a term ending almost a year before the end of the master lease term. But the subtenant agreed to make payments directly to the master landlord.

The court acknowledges that there exists New York precedent for the concept that parties who are actually in a debtor/creditor relationship will not be permitted to structure a security arrangement as a lease to avoid the equity of redemption.

Here, however, the court sees a separate and free-standing sublease, and perceives no problem with making performance of the note a condition of the sublease. It comments that the sublandlord's claim in the summary rent and possession action is for the back rent under the sublease, and not for the entire amount payable under the note.

Comment 1: The drafters of this arrangement "dodged a bullet" here. Cross defaulting the lease and the promissory note, so that a default in the note could result in a forfeiture of rights under the sublease, probably did constitute an attempt to set up the real estate rights in the sublease as security for the note. This would be a classsic equitable mortgage.

As the deal worked out, the "sublandlords" apparently decided to forfeit the lease because the "subtenants" had not even paid the sublease payments, let alone the payments under the note. Thus, although the transaction functioned as an equitable mortgage, the enforcement was focussed on the aspects of the deal that were a sublease. That the court let the parties get away with this, however, was pure luck. Don't try this at home, kids!!

Comment 2: The court, unfortunately, does not appear to recognize the signficance of the different terms of the two interests. Instead, it stresses the "characterization" language contained in the various documents to support its conclusion that the parties really had a sublease. In fact, in dicta the court says that the arrangement might have been characterized as an assignment had not this self serving language appeared in the documents. This part of the court's analysis departs from existing law, which emphasizes the term of a sublease as the principle defining characteristic and generally would ignore self serving characterizations as a sublease where the purported sublease is coterminous with the master lease.

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 Stacy Walter at the ABA. (312) 988 5260 or stacywalter@staff.abanet.org

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. Accuracy of data and opinions expressed are the sole responsibility of the DIRT editor and are in no sense the publication of the ABA.