The Importance of 'Speaking Up' Regarding Lease Renewal Deadlines for Commercial Tenants and Landlords
While courts in South Florida sometimes agree with the commercial landlords and force the tenant to leave if the tenant was late in exercising the renewal option, it has been the law of our state for over 70 years that, in certain circumstances, a tenant that exercises its option late may nonetheless extend the terms of its lease.
July 08, 2024 at 11:37 AM
6 minute read
Imagine you are a small business owner, and you enter a five-year commercial lease that naturally expires at the end of the year. The lease grants you an option to renew the lease, but to exercise the renewal option you must mail the commercial landlord a written notice no later than Nov. 31, 2023. On Nov. 15, 2023, you tell your rock-star office administrator to send the landlord the written lease renewal notice. Unfortunately, your office administrator made a typographical error that resulted in the lease-renewal notice being mailed to the wrong location. On Nov. 18, 2023, (a week before the Thanksgiving holidays), you speak with the landlord over the phone and provide verbal notice of your intent to renew the lease; and the landlord tells you that, while he doesn't mind you staying on the property and doesn't have any plans on leasing or selling the property, he needs the written notice. As soon as you get off the phone you immediately follow up with your office administrator to confirm that the lease renewal letter was sent; and she swears that it was mailed to the correct location. Over the holidays you become ill and do not recover until Dec. 5, 2023.
When you get back into the office you see the return receipt and realize that your office administrator mailed the renewal notice to the wrong location. You send another renewal notice to the landlord via overnight mail and receive confirmation that it was received by the landlord. You believe everything is fine and look forward to continuing your business. However, on Jan. 1, 2024, you receive correspondence from the landlord stating that he is rejecting your renewal notice because it is untimely. Is there anything that can be done to ensure that you can keep your business at that location? Or can the landlord remove the tenant and now lease the property a higher amount that matches the market?
This content has been archived.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 AllDon’t Forget the Owner’s Manual: A Guide to Proving Liability Through Manufacturers’ Warnings and Instructions
5 minute readLeveraging the Power of Local Chambers of Commerce: A Second-Career Lawyer’s Guide to Building a Thriving Practice
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Settlement Allows Spouses of U.S. Citizens to Reopen Removal Proceedings
- 2CFPB Resolves Flurry of Enforcement Actions in Biden's Final Week
- 3Judge Orders SoCal Edison to Preserve Evidence Relating to Los Angeles Wildfires
- 4Legal Community Luminaries Honored at New York State Bar Association’s Annual Meeting
- 5The Week in Data Jan. 21: A Look at Legal Industry Trends by the Numbers
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