Generally speaking, rents comprise the principal income derived from commercial real property ownership prior to the sale of the property. In traditional, non-recourse lending, where the special purpose entity borrower may become insolvent, lenders rely on the rent and related income from the property as security for the loan.

One mechanism employed by commercial mortgage lenders to secure their interest in the rental stream is to require in the mortgage document an assignment of leases and rents pursuant to which the borrower 'presently and absolutely' assigns to the lender the rents from the real property. In turn, the lender grants the borrower a license, revocable upon an event of default, to collect and use the rents.

Lenders have elected to include the language purporting to affect a “present” and “absolute” transfer with the hope of achieving the benefits of an “absolute” assignment of the rents over a “collateral” assignment. If the assignment is deemed to be an “absolute” transfer of legal title of the rents from the borrower to the lender, then such assignment would become enforceable immediately upon an event of default and revocation of borrower's license to collect and use the rents—meaning, that the lender would have the right and ability to collect the rents directly from the tenants as soon as an event of default has occurred. By contrast, if the assignment is considered “collateral,” the lender runs the risk that, following an event of default and a resulting borrower bankruptcy, the rents will be deemed property of the bankruptcy estate, subject to a bankruptcy plan and protected by the Bankruptcy Code's automatic stay.

Case Law

New York case law surrounding the treatment of assignments of leases and rents, whether by “absolute” or “collateral” assignment nominally suggests that judges will give effect to the intended purpose of these assignments, ignoring such “absolute” assignment language and interpreting the assignment as a “collateral” one for the mortgage loan. For this reason, a majority of New York state courts have ruled that lenders cannot create an absolute assignment of leases and rents in a mortgage transaction regardless of the language used.

In Dream Team Assocs. v. Broadway City, 2003 N.Y. Slip Op 50894U, 2003 WL 21203342 (N.Y.Civ.Ct. May 7, 2003), for instance, the court addressed the question of whether an assignment of rents constitutes an absolute assignment and ruled that “[u]nder New York law…the language used in the assignment instrument itself is not determinative of what rights are actually transferred.” Relying on the fact that New York is a “lien theory” state rather than a “title theory” state, state courts typically hold that an assignment of leases and rents, regardless of the wording of the provision or form taken, will not be a present assignment when given as security for the loan.

It follows then that, if assignments of rents do not serve to transfer immediate title to the rents, they instead transfer equitable title and constitute a pledge of the rents to which the lender cannot become entitled until taking some extra, affirmative enforcement steps. In In re Soho 25 Retail, No. ADV. 11-1286-SHL, 2011 WL 1333084, at *6–8 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. March 31, 2011), the court sought to summarize certain potential steps to enforcement as follows: “requesting the appointment of a receiver to collect the rents, demanding or taking possession [of the property], commencing foreclosure proceedings, or seeking an order for the sequestration of rents.”

These additional, affirmative steps do not seem onerous at first glance. However, as any mortgage lender will attest, the foreclosure process in New York State is slow. Furthermore, mortgage lenders are properly advised to avoid the exercise of any such rights prior to an appointment of a receiver or the consummation of foreclosure for fear of being found to be a mortgagee in possession, which could cause lenders to be deemed to have assumed all of the same duties and liabilities of the owner of the property. The rule was recently restated by the court in Allen v. Echeverria, 11 N.Y.S.3d 170, 173 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015), that is, a mortgagee who takes possession of the property mortgaged as collateral is “bound to employ the same care and supervision over the mortgaged premises that a reasonably prudent owner would exercise in relation to his own property; he is bound to make reasonable and needed repairs, and is responsible for any loss or damage occasioned by his willful default or gross neglect in this regard.” Most commercial mortgage lenders are not in the business of managing properties and do not want to be subject to the liability that could arise during such management, especially when the title to the property remains vested in an adverse party, i.e., its defaulted borrower.

In light of the bankruptcy risks and the potential that an assignment of rents will not be deemed an absolute assignment, vigilant lenders will avail themselves of alternative mechanisms to exert control over the rents, namely, (i) cash management arrangements and (ii) guaranties that provide for liability in the event of a misappropriation of the rents.

Through “lockbox” arrangements between the lender, the borrower and third-party banks, lenders will control the rents deposited by tenants directly into such lender-controlled clearing accounts. The rents will then be distributed according to the terms agreed upon by the parties at closing or otherwise at the direction of the lender in order to pay debt service and to accumulate reserves for the payment of property taxes and insurance. Borrowers will typically have no right to access these funds and, in all cases following an event of default, the banks will be prohibited from following any instructions received from borrowers. For loans in which lenders perceive greater risk, they can structure cash management to exercise greater control of the rents and to make less funds available to the borrower, decreasing the risk that rents will be misused. Additionally, loan documents always provide that, during an event of default, the rents deposited into the cash management accounts will be deemed to be additional collateral for the loan and may be applied by the lender to pay down the debt in lender's sole discretion.

Lenders may also protect against the misuse of rents by including a carve-out to the non-recourse nature of the mortgage loan in a guaranty executed by a borrower-affiliated person or entity. In such a guaranty, the guarantor will be liable to the lender to the extent of any loss suffered by the lender due to the misapplication or misappropriation of rents by the borrower or its affiliates.

Conclusion

Mortgage lenders should not rely on assignments of leases and rents, whether as a clause in the mortgage or as a separate agreement, to protect their interests in the income from their collateral prior to the appointment of a receiver or the final sale of the property at foreclosure. The enforcement of these agreements may take considerable time and money before the lender even gains a legal right to collect rents. Lenders should account for these risks by taking other legal measures which grant them greater control and actually give them enforceable rights immediately upon default.

Jeffrey B. Steiner is a member of DLA Piper. Shane Goodhue, a law clerk (assoc.) at the firm, assisted in the preparation of this article.