Should Landlords Apply Security Deposits to Unpaid Rents During the COVID-19 Pandemic?
There are currently several bills in various stages of being passed into law in several states as of early April, which would restrict, on a temporary basis, the eviction of commercial tenants from their leased premises for failure to pay rent, If these bills get passed. the question then is whether a landlord may enforce the security deposit section of its lease and take the deposit should the tenant miss a rent payment.
May 07, 2020 at 03:18 PM
6 minute read
This article appeared in Commercial Leasing Law & Strategy, your monthly source for practical, must-have information on the business and legal aspects of commercial leases.
Many landlords of shopping centers and other commercial buildings have been asking whether landlords can begin eviction proceedings or exercise other lease or legal remedies now that tenants have missed April rent payments. While there are currently several bills in various stages of being passed into law in several states as of early April, which would restrict, on a temporary basis, the eviction of commercial tenants from their leased premises for failure to pay rent, the current restrictions only apply to residential tenants throughout the country.
Just recently, the Massachusetts state senate passed a bill that prohibits all non-emergency evictions for small businesses and prohibits evictions and foreclosures for residential properties for at least 120 days after the bill is signed by the governor. The legislation also prohibits late fees or negative credit reporting for non-payment of rent if the lack of payment if the lack of payment is due to financial impact related to COVID-19. Several other states are passing similar bills on a temporary basis. Whether these bills get signed into law and survive judicial scrutiny remains to be seen. And since most judicial proceedings have come to a standstill, eviction or other proceedings do not seem to be a wise choice at this time.
The question then logically follows whether, instead of taking the severe remedy of evicting a commercial tenant, or applying late charges, a landlord may enforce the security deposit section of its lease and take the deposit should the tenant miss a rent payment.
Again, as of mid-April, there are not any states that have passed laws which would restrict the right of a landlord to apply the security deposit to unpaid rent in a retail or other commercial lease.
However, before taking this course of action, it is imperative the landlord review the security deposit section of the lease. Many leases require there to be an "Event of Default" which event can only occur following a notice and opportunity to cure. In these cases, the landlord should send a notice to the tenant, asserting that the rent or other payment was not timely made and following the cure period set forth in the lease, the landlord will apply the security deposit to the unpaid rent. Even without this requirement, it is recommended that the landlord notify the tenant that the landlord is taking this action. If the security deposit is applied, the landlord would also send a notice requiring the tenant to restore the security deposit to the original amount. Often the lease specifies a time period for the tenant to do so.
This action would not run against any laws that states may adopt restricting evictions of commercial tenants or prohibiting late charges, since the landlord is not seeking to do either of these two actions. The landlord may, in its notice to the tenant, specifically mention that the landlord is not seeking either of these two remedies, even though it would be permitted to do so in the lease.
However, the decision to take the security deposit must be looked at on a case by case basis. Is this a tenant that is still fully operating its business and merely using the pandemic in an effort to reduce its operating costs? The landlord should also determine whether this is a tenant that has chronically been late and for which the landlord has given several breaks in the past. Or is it a tenant that has always paid rent on time and missed its April payment for the first time because of COVID-19? More leniency might be given in the latter situation. But since tenants may talk to each other, an issue can arise that the landlord is treating certain tenants differently, and this could have a negative impact in the future relationship with the tenant whose security deposit was taken. Is this a tenant the landlord wants to keep in the shopping center or building? Is the landlord concerned about how this would be seen if it gets out to the public? For this reason, instead of taking the security deposit of tenants who didn't pay April rent, many landlords are seeking to enter into lease amendments with their tenants to defer unpaid rent for some short period of time, and perhaps requiring the tenants to pay only reduced or percentage rent (if a retail tenant who is still open for business) and operating expenses and taxes. This could be seen as an opportunity to improve the landlord's position on some other lease issues (such as waiving an early termination right or removing a co-tenancy provision), or perhaps extend the term of the lease on the back end. In the lease amendment, the parties could agree that the landlord may apply the security deposit to unpaid rent and provide for the restoration at a later date. The landlord may also use this as an opportunity to require a guaranty of the lease obligations by an individual or parent or affiliate company that is not as greatly impacted by reduced operations.
For the reasons stated in the above paragraph, there may be reasons why the landlord does not want to simply apply the security deposit to unpaid rent. The risk that a landlord takes, however, in delaying the application of the security deposit, is that if the tenant may eventually file for bankruptcy protection, and if the landlord hasn't yet taken the security deposit, it might not be able to do so under applicable bankruptcy laws. This might not be the case should the security deposit be in the form of a letter of credit, in which case the landlord would have more rights to draw on the letter of credit at a later date.
So while taking a security deposit may be an available remedy for a landlord to take, the decision to do so must be made on a case by case basis, looking at the language of each lease and the relationship between the landlord and the tenant.
*****
Ira Fierstein, a member of the Board of Editors of Commercial Leasing Law & Strategy, is a partner in the real estate group at Seyfarth Shaw LLP.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All!['A Waste of Your Time': Practice Tips From Judges in the Oakland Federal Courthouse 'A Waste of Your Time': Practice Tips From Judges in the Oakland Federal Courthouse](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://k2-prod-alm.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/brightspot/ec/30/b8c5deb348739c0c591e8a638bbc/westmore-ryu-rogers-gilliam-2-767x633-1.jpg)
'A Waste of Your Time': Practice Tips From Judges in the Oakland Federal Courthouse
!['If the Job Is Better, You Get Better': Chief District Judge Discusses Overcoming Negative Perceptions During Q&A 'If the Job Is Better, You Get Better': Chief District Judge Discusses Overcoming Negative Perceptions During Q&A](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://k2-prod-alm.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/brightspot/2a/db/e679848948f99fa59e679be6178e/f-dennis-saylor-iv-3-767x633.jpg)
'If the Job Is Better, You Get Better': Chief District Judge Discusses Overcoming Negative Perceptions During Q&A
![Scammers Target Lawyers Across Country With Fake Court Notices Scammers Target Lawyers Across Country With Fake Court Notices](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://images.law.com/contrib/content/uploads/sites/392/2024/11/AI-Phishing-767x633.jpg)
Scammers Target Lawyers Across Country With Fake Court Notices
![Unlocking Your Lawyers' Rainmaking Potential: A Coaching Guide Unlocking Your Lawyers' Rainmaking Potential: A Coaching Guide](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://images.law.com/contrib/content/uploads/sites/292/2024/10/rainmaker2_767.jpg)
Unlocking Your Lawyers' Rainmaking Potential: A Coaching Guide
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1The M&A Partners Who Drove the Most Business as Deal Leads in 2024
- 2Judge Finds Trump Administration Violated Order Blocking Funding Freeze
- 3CFPB Labor Union Files Twin Lawsuits Seeking to Prevent Agency's Closure
- 4Crypto Crime Down, Hacks Up: Lawyers Warned of 2025 Security Shake-Up
- 5Atlanta Calling: National Law Firms Flock to a ‘Hotbed for Talented Lawyers’
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250