How Landlords Can Address Eviction Moratoriums for Commercial Tenants During the Pandemic
Landlords must navigate local, state and federal restrictions on traditional enforcement mechanism available to address nonpayment of rent under their lease and Florida law.
May 19, 2020 at 10:09 AM
4 minute read
The pandemic is having a major impact on business finances and the greater economy. With many businesses operating with reduced hours or closing indefinitely, many commercial real estate tenants are already feeling financial strain. As a result, many tenants may not pay their rent on time. Landlords need cash flow to pay employees and vendors and to keep operating and maintaining the property. At the same time, landlords must navigate local, state and federal restrictions on traditional enforcement mechanism available to address nonpayment of rent under their lease and Florida law.
At the time of this writing, there is no federal restriction on evictions. Florida's governor issued an executive order suspending and tolling residential evictions for nonpayment until May 18. The executive order does not apply to commercial evictions.
However, on March 16, the Miami-Dade Police Department suspended the enforcement of all writs of possession until further notice, and on March 18, the Florida Supreme Court followed suit and suspended the issuance of writs of possession throughout the state until April 17, which was later extended to June 2.
Without being able to obtain or enforce writes of possession, landlords cannot legally repossess their property. Because this is a fluid situation, there is no way to know if these restrictions will be extended for a longer duration of time. Accordingly, landlords must monitor temporary changes in policies enacted at all levels of government in response to the pandemic.
Landlords should also be cognizant of the financial struggles that some tenants will experience and consider approaching rent collection with a certain amount of reasonableness and understanding. Major retailers and restaurant chains across the country, such as Cheesecake Factory, Staples and Urban Outfitters, have notified their landlords that they are not able to pay any rent as a result of the pandemic. Landlords are in the unenviable position of having to choose between evicting important longtime tenants or accept a waiver, reduction, or deferral of rent.
Landlords should address rent nonpayment on a case-by-case basis. Not all tenants are facing financial difficulties, and some may be trying to take advantage of the current situation. Landlords should inform such tenants that they are required to abide by the terms of their lease and, if you choose to provide relief, that rent will only be addressed after the tenant has provided sufficient financial documentation showing how the tenant has been affected by the pandemic, including the disclosure of any relief they have requested and received from the government. Where the tenant is a franchisee, the financial documentation should be limited to that specific location.
Before reaching any agreement with a tenant, landlords should have an attorney review the lease and advise them of the strengths and weaknesses of the different legal options available to them. If the landlord decides that an accommodation is in its best interest, an amendment to the lease should be drafted to memorialize in writing the agreed upon terms, and such amendment should be reviewed and approved by the tenant's counsel. If the tenant elects to not have counsel review the amendment on their behalf, then make sure that you have provided the tenant with sufficient time to review the amendment, and the amendment includes language that the tenant had sufficient time and the opportunity to obtain counsel to review the amendment.
As with most landlord-tenant situations, knowledgeable legal counsel is indispensable in navigating the myriad legal issues that may arise, but in light of the pandemic, it is more important than ever to make sure that you are represented by qualified counsel.
Avi S. Tryson is the Coral Gables managing partner of Goede, Adamczyk, DeBoest & Cross. He focuses his practice on community association and real estate law.
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
© 2024 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 AllNavigating Claims Under the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act and Florida Telemarketing Act
4 minute readSecond Circuit Ruling Expands VPPA Scope: What Organizations Need to Know
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Armstrong Teasdale's London Creditors Face Big Losses
- 2Texas Court Invalidates SEC’s Dealer Rule, Siding with Crypto Advocates
- 3Quinn Emanuel Has Thrived in China. Will Trump Help Boost Its Fortunes?
- 4Manufacturer Must Provide Details Surrounding Expert’s Livestreamed Inspection, Fed Court Rules
- 5Waterbury Jury Awards $2 Million Verdict Against Eversource
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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