When the tenant’s business is made illegal during the term of the lease, the tenant’s business is likely to disappear altogether, leading to a likely default. What that means for the landlord and tenant may come down to drafting. Consider two similar cases with different outcomes that together give guidance to landlords and tenants.
In 1919, the Florida Supreme Court decided the case of Christopher v. Charles Blum Co. The lease in that case permitted the tenant to operate a bar. During the lease term, Florida banned the sale of liquor at the point of consumption, more or less making bars illegal. The tenant argued that the new law terminated the lease. The court disagreed, finding that the lease permitted the bar use, but did not require it. As a result, when the new law was enacted, the tenant could have used the premises for some other lawful business. The court therefore ruled for the landlord.
A couple of weeks ago, Florida’s 4th District Court of Appeal also dealt with a lease where the tenant’s business became illegal during the term. In Lucas Games Inc. v. Morris AR Assoc., LLC, the tenant’s lease required operation of the leased premises as “an entertainment arcade for persons over the age of 18 years old and for no other use or purpose.” The lease also specifically barred the tenant from having any “coin-operated amusement devices.” The tenant operated a business where customers played computerized slot machines and won prizes. In 2013, during the lease term, Florida banned those types of games outside of designated casinos, but created a safe harbor for coin-operated amusement games.
After the new law was enacted, the tenant shut down its business and the landlord sued. The tenant argued that its performance under the lease was excused due to the passage of the new law. The landlord argued that the tenant could have still performed under the lease by using legal games, such as skee-ball. The appellate court reversed summary judgment for the landlord and sent the case back to the trial court for more proceedings. The court noted that, unlike in Christopher, the entertainment arcade use was required and the lease did not allow coin-operated games.
The lesson from these two cases is that if the tenant’s use becomes illegal during the lease term, whether the use was required or just permitted may very well determine who wins the lawsuit. The landlord and tenant must discuss during lease negotiations whether a use is required or permissive, particularly where the use carries some risk of becoming illegal during the term.
- 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