A common theme of the cases and issues discussed in this blog is that document drafting is at the root of many commercial real estate disputes (such as here, here, here, and here). It’s usually the case that the parties don’t notice the drafting issue until a problem arises. A new case provides yet another example.
Haggin v. Allstate Investments, Inc. is about a lease guaranty and whether it covered extensions of the lease term. In 1998, the tenant executed a lease for commercial space with the following term:
Landlord grants to Tenant an option to renew this Lease for one (1) additional three (3) year term subject to the following:…(e) All other terms and conditions of this Lease shall remain unchanged with the exception of monthly Base Rent which shall be increased during the renewal term of each anniversary of the Commencement Date . . . .
At the same time, a guarantor signed a separate guaranty that stated that the guarantor “agree[d] that this guarantee shall remain for the renewal, modification, extension or waiver of this Lease.” The lease was amended and extended several times beyond the initial term and three year extension option provided for in the original lease. The guarantor never signed any of the amendments. Eventually, in 2012, the landlord sued the tenant for breach of the lease for failure to pay rent, and sued the guarantor under the guaranty.
In his deposition, the guarantor said that he signed what he thought was a guaranty of a “three year lease.” Interestingly, the guarantor also agreed with landlord’s counsel that it appeared that the later lease extension at issue – beyond the original 3 year option in the lease – did appear to be covered by his guaranty. The landlord moved for summary judgment and included an affidavit stating that he never would have done the deal without the guaranty covering any extended lease term. The guarantor also moved for summary judgment and filed an affidavit stating that he never knew about the various lease amendments. The trial court found that the guaranty was ambiguous on the point in dispute, but ruled for the landlord.
The appellate court disagreed and reversed that decision. The court noted that in Florida, a lease guaranty can be continuing, but it must specifically state that it covers future extensions of the lease term or other future agreements between the landlord and tenant concerning the lease. Examining the lease and guaranty, the appellate court ruled that the lease was unambiguous that it included only a single three year renewal option and therefore, that was all the guarantor guaranteed. Further, the guaranty made no mention of covering anything but the original lease; it made no mention of possible future renewals.
In the end, it came down to the lease and guaranty language on which the parties agreed.
- 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
- Florida Appellate Court Provides Further Guidance Regarding New Summary Judgment Rule
- SEC Adopts New Cybersecurity Rules
- From 😊 to 💼: Can Emojis Create a Legally Binding Contract?
- HB-3: An Overview of ESG Factors Relating to Public Funds Investment and Financial Industry Impacts
- The Live Local Act Part 2 - Affordable Housing Incentives
- Florida's Live Local Act
- Florida Preliminary Injunctions Must Merely Preserve the Status Quo
- Can a Landlord Obtain Funds Deposited by Tenant in the Court’s Registry?
- Drawn-out negotiations over purchase agreement result in extensive litigation
- In eviction case, trial court wrongly made landlord produce leases with other tenants
Popular Categories
- Litigation
- Contracts
- Landlord-Tenant
- Business
- Litigation (Appellate)
- Supreme Court
- Real Estate Law
- Cyber fraud
- Technology
- Business of Real Estate
- Property Tax
- Development/Land Use
- Cybersecurity
- Data Security
- Conveyances
- Foreclosures
- Estate planning
- Trusts and Estates
- Lease
- Wealth planning
- Business
- Insurance
- Restrictive Covenants
- Title
- Construction
- Promissory Notes
- Regulatory Compliance
- Government
- Creditor's Rights
- Liens and encumbrances
- Compliance
- Americans with Disabilities Act
- Eviction
- Bankruptcy
- Ad Valorem Assessments
- Attorneys' Fees
- Appeals
- Attorneys' Fees
- Employment and Labor
- Litigation (Labor & Employment)
- Small Business
- Mortgages
- Loan guaranties
- Consumer Protection
- Regulation
- Maritime
- GAO
- Commercial Brokerage
- Renewal
- email hacking
- Lis Pendens
- Homestead
- Partnerships and LLCs
- Standing
Editors
- Associate
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Associate
- Partner
- Associate
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Associate
- Partner
- Partner
Archives
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- January 2023
- October 2022
- July 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- March 2020
- October 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- May 2019
- February 2019
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- October 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 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