Many commercial leases include a provision concerning the tenant’s right to assign the lease or sublet the leased premises. These provisions often require the tenant to get the landlord’s consent to any assignment or sublease. This is for good reason – the landlord (or perhaps its predecessor-in-interest) had the opportunity to vet the tenant before signing the lease and generally wants similar protection before someone else takes over either the tenant’s position or possession of the premises. An assignment provision may include a standard by which the landlord can decide whether to consent to a proposed assignment or sublease. But under even the most landlord-favorable standard, can a commercial landlord ever have an absolute right to reject a proposed assignment? Two Florida cases give some guidance, and one suggests that an absolute right exists only if the lease expressly says so.
In the 1981 case Fernandez v. Vazquez, a bakery lease required the landlord’s written consent to an assignment or sublease. The tenant, who operated the bakery, contracted to sell the business and sought to assign the lease to the purchaser. The landlord refused to give consent, and then later offered to consent only if the bakery purchaser would pay an increased rental rate. The purchaser was unwilling to buy the bakery with the increased rent, so he rescinded his contract to purchase the business. The landlord then sued the tenant for unpaid rent and the tenant counterclaimed for breach of the lease for refusing to consent to the assignment.
The appellate court reversed summary judgment for the landlord, based on “the now well-accepted concept that a lease is a contract and, as such, should be governed by the general contract principles of good faith and commercial reasonableness.” The court disavowed the idea that a commercial landlord can arbitrarily reject a proposed assignment, even where the lease has no minimum threshold or standard for consent. Rather, a landlord may breach the lease by rejecting a proposed assignment without good faith and commercial reasonableness.
The lease assignment provision in Fernandez had no standard by which to measure whether the landlord could deny consent. Therefore, implicit in the ruling is the concept that a lease assignment provision with no standard does not give the landlord an absolute right to deny consent to a proposed assignment.
In Speedway SuperAmerica, LLC v. Tropic Enterprises, Inc., an appellate court gave a little more insight into whether a landlord can have an absolute right to deny consent. In that case, the tenant assigned the lease and the assignee took possession of the property. The lease required the landlord’s consent, but provided no standard, and the tenant never requested or obtained consent. The court observed that the lease did not expressly give the landlord absolute discretion to withhold consent. The court reversed the trial court’s ruling that the lease, absent a standard, gave the landlord “the unfettered right to deny consent to the assignment” of the lease.
Like the appellate court in Fernandez, the appellate court in Speedway rejected the idea that a lease provision without a standard by which the landlord’s acceptance or rejection of an assignment must be measured means that the landlord has an absolute right of rejection. While neither court addressed whether a landlord can ever have such an absolute right, Speedway at least suggests that parties to a commercial lease could expressly agree to give the landlord that right.
The court’s observation that the lease did not give an absolute right, coupled with the court’s application of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing that is in all Florida contracts, suggests that a provision expressly allowing the landlord to arbitrarily deny consent to an assignment could be enforceable. Absent a court explicitly ruling as much, though, landlords and tenants should be mindful of Fernandez, Speedway, and the implied covenant of good faith in denying consent to a proposed assignment.
This post is adapted from an article that was originally published in the Winter 2017 issue of ActionLine, a Florida Bar Real Property and Trust Law Section publication.
- Partner
Matt Chait is the Managing Partner of the West Palm Beach office of Shutts & Bowen LLP, where he is a member of the Business Litigation Practice Group. His statewide practice focuses on commercial real estate and land use litigation ...
Search Blog
Follow Us
Recent Posts
- Breaking News: FinCEN Postpones Beneficial Ownership Reporting Deadlines for Companies Impacted by Recent Major Storms
- What You Need to Know About the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Build America TIFIA Loan
- Breaking News: Federal Judge Blocks Nationwide Implementation of the FTC’s New Rule Banning Noncompete Agreements
- September 4th is Almost Here: How Employers Can Prepare for the Upcoming Effective Date of the FTC’s Non-Compete Rule
- Florida’s New Statutory Home Warranty: What Home Builders Need to Know
- Orange County Proposes Temporary Suspension Ordinance on New Development Applications
- Raising the Roof: The U.S. Department of Labor Announces Rule Raising Salary Thresholds for Overtime Exemptions
- New Guidelines Anticipated Following HHS’s Health Cybersecurity Concept Paper
- SECURE 2.0 and Protecting Your Designated Beneficiaries
- Florida Appellate Court Provides Further Guidance Regarding New Summary Judgment Rule
Popular Categories
- Employment and Labor
- Construction
- Business of Real Estate
- Construction Litigation
- Landlord-Tenant
- Litigation (Labor & Employment)
- Competition
- Real Estate Law
- Cybersecurity
- Intellectual Property
- Public Private Partnership
- Appeals
- Construction
- Litigation
- Contracts
- Development/Land Use
- Trusts and Estates
- Data Security
- Business
- Supreme Court
- Public Finance
- Privacy
- Technology
- IP Litigation
- Litigation (Appellate)
- Patents
- Business
- Regulatory Compliance
- Florida Government Contracts
- Foreclosures
- Trademark
- Health Care
- Contracting
- Financial Institutions
- Compliance
- Estate planning
- International Dispute Resolution
- Property Tax
- Florida Public Contracts
- Government Contracting
- Government Contracts
- Conveyances
- Government
- Lease
- Appellate Blog
- Patent Office
- Insurance
- Wealth planning
- Federal Government Contracting
- Florida Bid Protests
- Public Contracts
- Cyber fraud
- Infringement
- Proposal Writing
- Public Bidding
- GAO
- International Arbitration and Litigation
- Bid Protest
- Arbitration
- International
- Americans with Disabilities Act
- Restrictive Covenants
- Grant Writing
- Copyright
- Promissory Notes
- Title
- Small Business
- Florida Procurement
- Public procurement
- Consumer Privacy
- PTAB
- General Liability
- Technology
- International Arbitration
- Liens
- Liens and encumbrances
- Creditor's Rights
- Bidding
- Attorneys' Fees
- Inter Partes Review
- Power Generation
- Consumer Protection
- Regulation
- Contracting
- Government Vendor
- State Government Contracts
- Venue
- Ad Valorem Assessments
- Florida Administrative Law
- Attorneys' Fees
- Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure
- Bankruptcy
- Florida Public Procurement
- Russia-Related Arbitration
- Mortgages
- Eviction
- Record on Appeal
- FINRA
- Rehearing
- Loan guaranties
- Patents - Assignor Estoppel
- Dispute Resolution
- Statute of limitations
- Statute of repose
- Liens
- Maritime
- Damages
- Briefing
- Request for Proposal
- Patents - Obviousness
- Commercial Brokerage
- Department of Labor
- Trade Secrets
- Bid Writing
- Florida Bidding Strategies
- Renewal
- Attorneys' Fees
- Florida County Lands
- Florida Economic Incentive Packages
- Jury Instructions
- Stay
- Certiorari
- Design Professionals
- email hacking
- Forum Selection
- Assignment of Contract
- Assignment of Proceeds
- Offers of Judgment
- Prevailing Party
- Settlements
- Banking
- Designer Liability
- Finality
- Fintech
- Lis Pendens
- Appellate Jurisdiction - Deadlines
- Evidence
- Evidence
- Expert
- Expert Science
- Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure
- Marketing/Advertising
- Preservation
- Unlicensed Contracting
- Federal Supply Schedule
- Florida Public Records Law
- Mootness
- Socio-Economic Programs
- Sunshine Law
- Veteran Owned Business
- Homestead
- Partnerships and LLCs
- Standing
Editors
- Of Counsel
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Associate
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Senior Associate
- Partner
- Associate
- Partner
- Senior Associate
- Partner
- Associate
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Of Counsel
- Senior Associate
- Partner
- Associate
- Partner
- Partner
- Associate
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
Archives
- October 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- February 2024
- November 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- October 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016