Lot Lines: Disaster lessons for property owners

Last Updated on Thursday, 6 October 2016 02:05 Written by Chris Griswold Monday, 20 June 2016 02:49

Courtesy the Journal Record
by Ted Streuli

There were two tragic incidents in Orlando, Florida, this week: the mass shooting at a nightclub that left 50 people dead and a 2-year-old killed by an alligator on Disney property.

I asked Oklahoma City attorney Chris Griswold what commercial property owners and managers can do to limit their liability in such extraordinary circumstances.

The property owner might not have liability in the nightclub shooting, but it’s something an owner would like to prevent. Oklahoma allows licensees to carry firearms, but Griswold said that can be prohibited by a commercial landlord. The owner or his agent must post a sign saying guns are not allowed on the property, and it then applies to any part of the privately owned building that’s open to the public. That means if it’s posted, no one except law enforcement officers can carry a gun into reception areas, elevators, hallways, dining spaces or other public places.

There are exceptions, Griswold explained. Landlords can’t prohibit gun owners from locking their weapons in their cars parked on the property, and they can’t prohibit a tenant whose office is not open to the public from carrying a gun if he can enter without passing through a public space.

For multifamily housing, there would have to be a stipulation in the lease.

Carrying a gun into a privately owned building that prohibits firearms is not a criminal act. The landlord may order the person off the premises; if he doesn’t comply and the police are called, he can be fined $250. The penalty isn’t stiff, but landlords and their property managers who have posted the appropriate sign have the right to remove people who are armed.

As for the alligator incident, Disney’s lawyers have likely been hunkered down, frantically looking for a way to minimize the company’s liability. As Griswold noted, the whole point of Disney is to entertain families with children, and the company has a responsibility to do so in a safe manner.

The family assumed no risk of a gator attack, and they may argue that no reasonable person would expect an alligator to come after a child on theme park property. Disney could have marked the dangerous area or hired a company to remove the alligators. At the very least, they could have posted warning signs.

Having warned the public that a danger exists, said Griswold, can help mitigate the liability when something goes wrong.

Read more: http://journalrecord.com/2016/06/16/lot-lines-disaster-lessons-for-property-owners-opinion/#ixzz4C8CEU1Ob

Learn More

Tenancy At Will vs. Tenancy At Sufferance

Last Updated on Tuesday, 13 October 2015 06:14 Written by Chris Griswold Tuesday, 13 October 2015 06:14

The purpose of this article is to solely address the attributes of a tenancy at will vs. a tenancy at sufferance arrangement within the context of what happens at the natural expiration of a written commercial lease agreement when a tenant remains on the leased premises.

Simply put, if there’s a written lease and the lease expires naturally, by its own terms, whether a tenancy is at will or at sufferance depends upon one simple thing:  the consent (or lack thereof) of the landlord for the tenant to remain in possession.

If the landlord authorizes the tenant to remain in possession, the tenancy is at will (and becomes a periodic tenancy as soon as the tenant begins paying rent regularly).  If the landlord doesn’t authorize tenant’s continued possession, the tenancy is at sufferance.

What’s one reason for us to have the legal fiction of the tenancy at sufferance and what are its attributes?  Without it, the statute of limitations on adverse possession would begin running upon the natural expiration of the written lease and, upon the expiration of such required statutory period (15 years for Oklahoma, and 10 years for Texas), the hold over tenant could have arguably acquired fee simple title to such leased premises by bringing suit and demanding title to same by its simple adverse possession of the leased premises for the required time period above – something a landlord can easily prevent by declaring (in the written lease) that such holdover tenant’s possession of the leased premises after the natural expiry of the written lease to be one of a tenancy at sufferance.  The payment of rent by tenant (and the acceptance thereof by landlord) during the tenancy at sufferance can raise arguments by either party as to whether there is a true tenancy at sufferance arrangement, since the acceptance of rent by landlord could be argued to be landlord’s tacit consent to tenant’s occupancy – subject to the written terms and provisions of the lease (which could squarely address these issues).

What are the attributes of a tenancy at will and what are its strengths?  An arrangement, usually unwritten, whereby the landowner permits the tenant to be on the property with no advance understanding as to the termination date or the amount of the payment of rent.  This arrangement can, in the real world, also briefly follow the natural expiration of a written lease for a very brief time – until the tenant begins paying rent regularly (which is when a periodic tenancy is created and the tenancy at will terminates).  A tenancy at will arrangement, even after being converted to a periodic/month-to-month tenancy arrangement by the regular payment of rent, can be conveniently terminated by either the landlord or tenant by giving advance notice to the other party of such party’s intent to terminate the leasehold (usually 30 days ahead of the desired termination date, depending on the circumstances), unless the lease says otherwise.  Accordingly, while not required, the lease could provide that tenant can remain after the natural expiration date provided the tenant pays rent at some higher stated rate (usually 150% to 200% of the previous rate), not to exceed some stated period of time – thereby allowing the tenant some time flexibility for moving out while also guarantying the landlord a stated amount of rent (while the current tenant remains in possession) while a new, replacement tenant is being secured.

The information presented within this article is of a general nature and is not intended to be relied upon as legal advice in any particular matter without first consulting qualified counsel.

What My Clients Are Saying

“Just a note to let you know how much I have appreciated your help in the past with lease preparation and certain lease particulars that the lay person may sometimes not be familiar with. You have demonstrated a good balance of getting past certain points of law that when considering the lease in its entirety, have a tendency to slow the deal process. As I continue to do more business with larger companies, especially public companies, your knowledge of what is relevant and what is not is of great benefit. I also value you not interjecting yourself in the business points of a transaction except when appropriate. I trust that we will be doing business together for many years to come.”
Mark Ruffin, Precor/Ruffin / Oklahoma City, Oklahoma

Learn More

Leases v. Licenses v. Easements

Last Updated on Thursday, 14 July 2011 04:03 Written by Chris Griswold Thursday, 1 April 2010 09:01

Knowing the basics pays dividends.  At some point, it will make a big difference in the outcome of one of your deals.  Accordingly, we’re going to review some of the basic differences between leases, licenses and easements.  Why? Each vehicle has its own different strengths/weaknesses and I’ve seen each used within the wrong context.  Read more below….

Leases v. Licenses v. Easements

Revocable? Perpetual? Assignable?
Lease No No Yes
Easement No Yes n/a
License Yes No No

Absent certain language within the document and/or certain special circumstances, the foregoing table quickly summarizes the basic, legal discrepancies between each type of vehicle.  What practical effect do these differences have on you?

Parking Situations:  I’ve seen property owners grant easements to other adjoining property owners for parking space.  While this may sometimes be in the best interests of the granting property owner, it’s usually not.  Why? Easements are not usually revocable and are usually perpetual (which makes the issue of whether they’re assignable moot).  This all makes granting a parking easement a little risky since you might not like the future owners of the adjoining property.  Instead, you’d probably want to use either a lease or a license – depending upon the situation.

Vacating Right of Ways:  I’ve seen back-to-back property owners discuss the possibility of jointly vacating an alley (which would result in each property owner getting back their half of the alley) just to overlook the possibility that, unless they enter into a “reciprocal easement agreement” at the time of vacation, the other property owner could ostensibly fence off their half of the alley thereby constructively blocking off the other’s access to the back of their building (depending on the width of the alley).  In other words, granting each other mutual leases or licenses upon the other’s land won’t long-term protect either them or their respective successors (since neither a lease nor a license is perpetual in duration).

Snowcone Stands, Parking Lot Nurseries, Christmas Tree and Pumpkin Lots:  The big things here are: 1) seasonal/temporary use, and 2) your familiarity with the operators.  It’s okay for a property owner to grant a lease to an operator they’ve done business with for years for a 6 month term (i.e., Spring through Summer) to sell plants or to serve snow cones.  However, it’s likely unwise to grant a lease to a new and unknown operator who wants to sell pumpkins for just a few weeks.  Why? As a property owner, you won’t mind granting the lease with a hard, irrevocable, 6 month term to the repeat operator, but, with the new operator who only needs the space for a month or so, you’d probably want to use a license in order to retain the right to quickly revoke an unworkable/undesirable situation – especially since the term is so short….


“I take special care when selecting business partners to represent my company and look for those who exhibit the same levels of professionalism and integrity that I try to achieve.  Chris Griswold definitely meets these requirements and is considered a very valuable member of the JOBO Properties team.  I have no hesitation in recommending Mr. Griswold to handle your business and commercial real estate transactions.”

Darren Ford / Owner & Developer of JOBO Properties, L.L.C. / Oklahoma City, Oklahoma

Learn More

7301 Broadway Extension, Suite 200
Oklahoma City, OK 73116
405.229.7595 (cell)
405.840.1019 (office)
405.843.9190 (fax)


A signed retainer agreement shall precede any attorney/client relationship.
We accept VISA, Mastercard and now Discover too.

"Getting Your Deal Done"

Designed by WebmasterArmy.com