Leases v. Licenses v. Easements

Last Updated on Tuesday, 27 October 2020 06:40 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

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

Slippery Slopes

Last Updated on Thursday, 14 July 2011 04:03 Written by Chris Griswold Monday, 1 February 2010 09:20

Icy, snowy, slippery sidewalks (say it 3 times fast).  We’ve all seen our share this winter.  In response to a large number of inquiries I’ve received from concerned hotel, restaurant, office and retail owners and tenants, as well as the several requests I’ve received from our local insurance underwriting community that I write on the topic, I wanted to write a short piece in the hopes it saves some of you needless worry and, possibly, money.  Accordingly, I’ll answer the two most commonly asked questions from the groups mentioned above.

Questions About Slippery Slopes

Question #1:  “If I put out snow melt on my sidewalks, does it somehow serve as an admission of guilt if someone should subsequently slip and fall on the premises?”

Answer: No. The very act of putting out snow melt, etc… in an effort to prevent people from slipping, falling and hurting themselves cannot later be used against you.  In other words, you can’t use someone’s efforts to avert an accident against them later on if and when the accident occurs.  If you could, it would be tantamount to saying “…I’m suing you for trying to help me.”  Now, there are other relevant factors including, but not limited to, whether or not another person slipped and fell in the same area just before the plaintiff slipped and fell, whether you put out enough – and many others.  However, the fact that you put out snow melt, in and of itself, is not an admission of guilt; nor can it later be used against you in showing negligence.  Accordingly, don’t be afraid to put out snow melt when the weather gets bad.  However, and most importantly, when you put it out, put out enough to really do the job (including getting out your shovel if need be so the area(s) in question are clean, clear and safe).

Question #2:  “When should I put out snow melt?”

Answer:          It depends. Actually, the legally correct answer to this question is “when it’s reasonable to do so.”  Say what??!  I know…, it’s legalese and not really clear.  However, you can pretty much nail it down if you ask yourself the following question: “Given the current weather conditions; if my mother came to see me at work today, should I put out snow melt?” If the answer is yes, put it out.  Otherwise, don’t sweat it.

“Chris Griswold has always been proactive and professional.  He takes the time to work with us and tailors his approach to our situational needs.  My favorite thing about Chris is that he will let me know if there is an easier, less-expensive approach.  We look forward to working with him well into the future.”

Carl S. Milam / President / Western Concepts Restaurant Group / Oklahoma City, Oklahoma

The Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment – What is it, why is it there & what implications follow?

Last Updated on Thursday, 14 July 2011 04:04 Written by Chris Griswold Thursday, 1 October 2009 09:20

Listen up landlords, tenants, subtenants, brokers and lenders.  Sometimes, for whatever reason, we do something so many times that we actually forget the significance of doing it.  As regarding the typical commercial lease, there are certain provisions that, for some long-forgotten reason, appear again and again.  But why?  One of these provisions, the covenant of quiet enjoyment (which the Landlord owes to the Tenant), is really worth brushing up on.  Read more below….

The Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment – What is it, why is it there & what implications follow?

Some anonymous person once humorously noted “…I have my mind made up so don’t try to confuse me with the facts.”  We’ve all seen the covenant of quiet enjoyment expressed in the leases we negotiate.  It ordinarily reads something to the effect of “… Tenant may peaceably and quietly have, hold and enjoy the premises for the term aforesaid….”  However, what is this covenant, why is it there & what implications follow from the parties expressly addressing it in their lease?

What is it? The covenant of quiet enjoyment is the legal mechanism which prevents a landlord (or anyone for whose conduct the landlord is responsible) from “interfering” with a tenant’s use and enjoyment of the leased premises during the lease term.  Interestingly enough, if this covenant is not expressly spelled out in the lease (or if the lease was made orally), the law actually implies (i.e., inserts) this covenant into the lease.  When the law implies this covenant into the lease, the upshot is that upon such “interference” by landlord, the tenant doesn’t have to pay rent and can even elect to terminate the lease.

If the law implies it into every lease, why do I always find it written into every lease? Even though the law implies this covenant into every lease, the parties to a lease can still modify and condition the enforcement of this covenant by tenant.  Accordingly, when the language relating to the covenant of quiet enjoyment appears in the lease, it’s actually restricting and conditioning tenant’s rights – not enlarging them…. That’s why your lease reads that “…upon tenant’s payment of rent and observance of all the terms and provisions of this lease as contained herein, tenant may peaceably and quietly have, hold and enjoy the premises for the lease term contained herein….”  Remember, in the beginning, landlords’ counsel drafted the leases to serve the best interests of landlords, not tenants.  Since that time, due to all the leases that have been executed over the years, it has become a custom that Tenant will have to pay rent and perform all of their lease obligations prior to enforcing the covenant of quiet enjoyment against Landlord (which is reverse of how the law would otherwise imply).

What implications follow from the parties expressly addressing it in their lease? Basically, once the covenant of quiet enjoyment is expressed (i.e., conditioned) in the lease, it’s incumbent upon the tenant (and even the landlord) to carefully draft the lease provisions so that their interests are protected.  Why?  Upon seeing that the parties have chosen to negotiate their own particular terms as relating to the covenant of quiet enjoyment, the courts will not, absent certain circumstances, modify such negotiated terms.  So, negotiate carefully and write well….

______________________________________________________________________________

“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