Watch Your Language with Reservation of Rents/Other Rights in Ohio Deeds

(Supreme Court of Ohio in LRC Realty, Inc. v. B.E.B. Properties, Slip Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-3196 reaffirms time-tested rule that absent an express reservation in a deed, a covenant to pay rent runs with the land)

By: Stephen D. Richman, Esq. - Senior Counsel-Kohrman, Jackson & Krantz

-A Watch Your Language Series Article-

 

As established in other “Watch Your Language” articles for this Blog, as a general rule, courts will typically uphold commercial document provisions unless they are contrary to public policy or statutory law, or the subject of a mutual mistake.

Because of this judicial deference to “plain language” within real estate and other documents, and the fact that courts, as a general rule will not look outside the four corners of a document (to consider extrinsic evidence of intent) if the language is unambiguous (sometimes referred to as the “Four Corners Rule”), you must “watch your language, and say what you mean, precisely, or a judge will decide what you meant.” And, more often than not, what a judge decides in these cases is not what at least one of the parties meant.

The Ohio Supreme Court in LRC Realty, Inc. v. B.E.B. Properties, Slip Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-3196 recently espoused this basic tenet of Ohio law with regard to deeds, when it held that: 1) absent an express reservation in a deed conveying property, a covenant to pay rent runs with the land; and 2) “subject to” language in a deed, without more does not constitute an express reservation.

Background/Facts of LRC Realty, Inc. v. B.E.B. Properties.

As succinctly stated by the Ohio Supreme Court in LRC Realty, “This case concerns the leased land beneath a cell tower and the right to receive rental payments from the tower’s owner following the transfer of the underlying property.”

The specific facts of the case are as follows:

In 1994, B.E.B. Properties (“B.E.B.”) leased a portion of its three-acre commercial property in Chardon, Ohio to Northern Ohio Cellular Telephone Company (now, “New Par”) and also granted New Par an easement on that same property. Both the lease and the easement were subsequently recorded and a cellular tower was later built on the site.

Between 1995 and 2013, there were three (3) successive sales of the property. The third sale, which occurred in 2013 was to appellant, LRC Realty, Inc. (“LRC”).  Not soon after the first sale of the property, two of the partners of appellee B.E.B. (a general partnership) transferred their interest in the partnership to the third partner and his wife, Bruce and Sheila Bird (the “Birds”). The Birds assumed that the rents from the cell tower lease were assigned to them (notwithstanding the sale of the property), and in fact, New Par sent its rents to the Birds, until 2013 when LRC inquired as to its rights to the rents, and initiated litigation seeking a declaratory judgment that it was so entitled to such rent.

The trial court held for the plaintiffs and ordered the Birds to pay the owner of the property prior to LRC, the rents from 2007 to 2013, and to pay LRC the rents the Birds received in 2013, and thereafter. The Birds appealed the trial court’s decision to the 11^th District Court of Appeals of Ohio, and the 11^th District reversed that decision. Thereafter, the appellants appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court.

Analysis of LRC Realty, Inc. v. B.E.B. Properties.

The deed for the first transfer of the property was the key to this case (at all court levels) and provided as follows: “B.E.B. Properties … the said Grantor, does for its self and its successors and assigns, covenant with … Grantees … that it will warrant and defend said premises …against all lawful claims and demands whatsoever, “such premises further to be subject to the specific encumbrances on the premises as set forth above.”

The trial court found for the plaintiffs based on long standing Ohio law, that absent a reservation in a deed conveying property, the right to receive rents runs with the land; and it found no specific words of reservation in the deed in question. The Eleventh District believed that the “specific encumbrances on the premises as set forth above” language was a reference to the previously recorded lease and easement and therefore, such language should be interpreted as a reservation of the right to receive future rental payments under the lease.

The Supreme Court of Ohio in LRC Realty, Inc. v. B.E.B. Properties boiled the case down to two issues: (1) whether the general law in Ohio still provides that absent an express reservation in a deed conveying property, the right to receive rents runs with the land; and (2) whether or not language in a deed indicating that the property being conveyed is “subject to” a recorded lease agreement and easement constitutes such an express reservation.

Citing common law as far back as 1885, and statutory law enacted in 1965 (Ohio Revised Code Section 5302.04), the Ohio Supreme Court answered the first issue in the affirmative, namely that a covenant in a lease to pay rent “runs with the land” (meaning the right to receive rents would ordinarily follow the legal title transferred by deed, and belong to the grantee), absent a specific provision in the deed, reserving in grantor the right to receive such rental payments.

 In answering the second issue in the negative (that the “subject to” language in the deed at issue did not constitute an express reservation of rents), the Ohio Supreme Court simply acknowledged and applied the “Four Corners Rule.”  As explained by the court, “When interpreting a deed, the primary goal of this court is to give effect to the intentions of the parties [and the] best way to do that is to look at the words found within the four corners of the deed itself and to adhere to the plain language used there.”

Applying this rule of law to the deed at issue, the court concluded that “no words of reservation appear on the face of the deed in connection with the words ‘rent’ or ‘rental payments,’ and accordingly, B.E.B. Properties did not reserve the right to receive such rent when it conveyed the property.“  Without such a reservation, the court explained that “B.E.B’s subsequent assignment of that [rental] interest to the Birds was thus ineffective as it is impossible to assign an interest that one does not possess.”

  

What is the moral of this story? Watch your language, and say what you mean precisely, or a judge will tell you what you meant. The general, “Four Corners Rule” re: judicial deference to the written word in commercial documents, still… rules. Consequently, use the “magic” words- “reserve,” “reserving,” or “reservation” (vs. “subject to”) if your intent is to reserve rents or other rights in the grantor.   That way, there is nothing left open to interpretation. Make the plain language, plain as day, and you won’t need your day…in court.

Who Is the “Prevailing Party” When Awarding Attorneys’ Fees in Multiple Count, Landlord-Tenant Litigation?

(Watch your Language [with Attorneys’ Fees Provisions] & Say What You Mean, Precisely or a Judge Will Tell You What You Meant #14)

By: Stephen D. Richman, Esq.-Senior Counsel-Kohrman, Jackson & Krantz

Watch Your Language. As established in other “Watch Your Language” articles for this Blog, as a general rule, courts will uphold language in commercial agreements, unless it is contrary to statutory law or public policy. They traditionally presume that commercial parties are on more of an equal playing field and are more sophisticated concerning commercial transactions (such as commercial real estate deals), since both parties will usually have attorneys to review their documents. Because of this judicial deference to commercial language, you must, “say what you mean, precisely, or a judge will decide what you meant.” Failure to follow this axiom left the landlord in Simbo Properties, Inc. v. M8 Realty, LLC, 2019-Ohio-3091 (8^th Dist. Ct. of Appeals, Cuyahoga County) with a bill for its tenant’s attorneys’ fees in excess of the landlord’s claims for damages.

Attorneys’ Fees in General.  Ohio courts follow the so-called “American Rule,” which requires that each party involved in litigation pay his or her own attorneys’ fees.  There are, however three well-recognized exceptions to this rule: (1) where statutory provisions specifically provide that a prevailing party may recover attorneys’ fees; (2) where there has been a finding of bad faith; and (3) where the contract between the parties provides for it (sometimes referred to as “fee shifting”).

So called fee shifting or attorneys’ fees provisions are often drafted in general terms, with the parties assuming that their intent is clear. Frequent language calls for “reasonable attorneys’ fees to be awarded to the prevailing party.” Who is the prevailing party, however, when there are multiple counts, with one party prevailing on some counts and the other party prevailing on others? Does an award of “reasonable” fees mean that a prevailing party on one count is only entitled to fees related to that one count? The relatively recent case of Simbo Properties, Inc. v. M8 Realty, LLC reinforces the need to be specific and leave as little as possible to “interpretive chance.”

Simbo Properties, Inc. v. M8 Realty, LLC – (The Facts). The facts of the “Simbo” case are simple enough (the law, not so much). In December, 2012, Simbo Properties, Inc. (“Simbo”) and M8 Realty, LLC (“M8”) entered into a written lease pursuant to which Simbo leased commercial real property to M8.    The initial term of their lease agreement was for eighteen (18) months.   Simbo claimed that M8 violated several provisions of the lease resulting in the filing by Simbo of a lawsuit in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas (“trial court”).  Simbo filed a four-count complaint against M8 seeking the following:  Count 1 — rent (in excess of $150,000); Count 2 — real estate taxes ($32,158.34); Count 3 — property damage (in excess of $30,000 for flag pole and storm sewer damage); and Count 4 — breach of other pertinent lease provisions. M8 filed a counterclaim for damages claimed by M8. In pre-trial motions, M8 prevailed on Count 4 by virtue of the trial court granting M8’s motion for summary judgement. Of the remaining issues before the trial court, Simbo prevailed on Count 2, on part of Count 3 and on M8’s counterclaim. M8 prevailed upon Count 1 and part of Count 3.

After the judgement was rendered, both parties filed post-trial motions, including claims for attorneys’ fees.  Simbo and M8 based their claims for attorneys’ fees on the fact that they each prevailed upon at least part of the litigation, and their lease agreement contained a fee shifting  provision directing legal fees be awarded to the prevailing party of a lawsuit. Specifically, Section 37 of the Simbo/M8 lease agreement provides:  “If a lawsuit is filed with respect to this Lease, the prevailing party shall be entitled to collect all reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.”

On the issue of the award of attorneys’ fees under the lease, the trial court determined that M8 was the “prevailing party” since it won the “main issue” in the lawsuit (Count 1) and, as a result was entitled to all of its attorneys’ fees, as provided in the lease agreement.

Simbo then filed an appeal of the $238,335.73 award of attorneys’ fees and expenses to M8 and also challenged other aspects of the trial court’s rulings. Simbo argued that since it prevailed on two counts of the complaint and M8’s counterclaim, it should be considered the “prevailing party”

under the lease agreement’s fee-shifting provision. 

Simbo Properties, Inc. v. M8 Realty, LLC – (Case Analysis). On appeal, the 8^th District Court of Appeals first acknowledged that there were complications inherent in the trial court’s attorneys’ fees award because:  (1) the term “prevailing party” was not defined within the lease agreement; and (2) a determination of whether Simbo or M8 is the “prevailing party” was also complicated by a jury verdict in favor of both parties.

Nonetheless, the 8^th District Court of Appeals in Simbo easily resolved the complications by virtue of precedent (prior court rulings on point) established in the 10^th District Court of Appeals case, EAC Properties LLC v Brightwell (2014-Ohio-2078). EAC Properties was a landlord-tenant case on similar facts as Simbo, whereby the landlord (EAC Properties) brought suit against its tenant, Brightwell re: $30,000 of unpaid, additional rent (deemed the “primary claim” by the EAC court because it was the largest dollar amount claimed) and $3,000 of unpaid utilities. The court in EAC Properties determined that the landlord’s primary claim for additional rent failed, and because the landlord did not prevail on that primary issue, it was not entitled to collect any attorneys’ fees under the lease agreement.

Applying what it termed EAC’s’ “main issue standard,” the court of appeals in Simbo easily determined M8 to be the “prevailing party” because it received a jury verdict on the main issue of the case; the count (Count 1) that represented the largest dollar amount, as well as being the count that counsel for M8 spent the largest percentage of time defending.

The court in Simbo did acknowledge that there is a “some relief” (vs “main issue”) standard that has been applied to define a “prevailing party” in connection with statutory claims for attorneys’ fees such as is authorized in consumer protection and civil rights laws. However, the Simbo court did not find the “some relief standard” applicable in a contractual case like Simbo, reasoning that “While public policy in consumer protection and civil rights litigation supports a broader interpretation of ‘prevailing party’, no similar need exists in negotiated commercial fee-shifting clauses between sophisticated parties… represented by counsel[who] knowingly and willingly negotiated a commercial lease agreement.”

As if to reinforce our moral of the story below, the court of appeals in Simbo also reasoned that: “If the parties had desired to define “prevailing party,” e.g., as the party that prevails on the most counts in the litigation, Simbo and M8 could have drafted that provision into the lease… or [could have] defined the term “prevailing party,” but chose not to do so.  [Accordingly], we must follow the intent of the parties and apply the terms of the lease agreement.” In other words, the parties did not say what they meant, precisely, so the judge told them what they meant.

Since the court of appeals in Simbo determined that the parties intended to define “prevailing party” as the party that prevailed upon the main issue of the case, then such party should only be able to collect its attorneys’ fees with respect to the main issue. Right? That was the landlord’s argument. Simbo argued that M8 should recover only those attorneys’ fees attributable to Count 1, the count on which M8 prevailed at the trial court.  The court of appeals in Simbo, however upheld the trial court’s award of M8’s total legal fees incurred with respect to all of the counts of the litigation, including the counts the landlord prevailed upon. The Simbo court explained that claims that involve common facts or legal theories are too difficult to divide as to the time and hours spent on litigating the individual claims.  Accordingly, the court of appeals in Simbo held that “[W]here multiple claims are rooted in the same allegations, facts, discovery, and legal arguments, a trial court does not abuse its discretion in awarding attorney fees for the time spent on [all of] the claims.”

What is the moral of this story?  “Say what you mean, precisely, or a judge will tell you what you meant.” Clearly, the landlord in Simbo did not intend to pay more in legal fees than it had in claims, especially when it prevailed on some of those claims. Nevertheless, since there was no definition of “prevailing party” in the lease, the court, in effect found one. 

Listen to what judges are saying with regard to interpreting leases and other commercial contracts: “When the language of a written contract is clear, a court may look no further than the writing itself to find the intent of the parties” [So, be clear]. Define “prevailing party” in commercial fee shifting provisions; define “reasonable fees” or consider a “floor” or “ceiling.” Also, be clear as to whether or not your intent is to be reimbursed for legal fees after a default, whether or not it ends up in litigation.

In other words, the “well-known and established principle of contract interpretation is that [c]ontracts are to be interpreted so as to carry out the intent of the parties, as that intent is evidenced or not evidenced by the contract language” [So, evidence your intent in your documents].

Boilerplate Language Upheld in Ohio Storage Lease

By: Stephen D. Richman, Esq.-Senior Counsel-Kohrman, Jackson & Krantz

boil•er•plate (boi l r-pl t ) n.

1. A steel plate used in making the shells of steam boilers.
2. Inconsequential, formulaic, or stereotypical language: The new provisions of the lease renewal were merely boilerplate.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. 

The first type of “boilerplate” defined above is pretty tough stuff. It can be up to twelve (12) inches thick and stop arrows, Greek fire and low caliber ammunition. Tough, one-sided contract and lease language is also referred to by many as “boilerplate”. What is amazing to me is how many tenants, landlords, brokers and dictionary writers believe such language is inconsequential or unenforceable, and how many do not worry about such language because they deem it “merely boilerplate.”

Notwithstanding the above definition, this author would like to caution you to worry, if you ever find yourself on the “wrong side of the boilerplate.” Contrary to “Mr. Heritage’s” beliefs, odds are that boilerplate (at least in a commercial lease/contract) will most likely be enforceable unless it is contrary to statutory law or public policy. Judges assume (rightly or wrongly) that commercial tenants and landlords are on equal footing with equal sophistication in business and lease matters. They believe commercial parties say what they mean and mean what they say in their contracts. Ohio court decisions regarding commercial leases are replete with language like the following: “when reviewing lease provisions, a court is to presume that the intent of the parties is in the language they used, and if the contract is clear and unambiguous, then we must follow the contract’s expressed terms and must not go beyond the plain language of the contract.” Langfan v. Carlton Gardens, 2009 Ohio App. LEXIS 2863. Accordingly, self-help provisions, landlord disclaimers of the duty to mitigate damages, warrants of attorney to confess judgement and disclaimers of warranties are just a few examples of boilerplate language upheld in commercial leases in Ohio.

The primary exception to the general enforceability of boilerplate language in Ohio is Ohio’s Landlord-Tenant Act (ORC Chapter 5301 et. seq.), which governs Ohio residential leases. Specifically, Section 5321.13 (d) of such Act provides that “No agreement by a tenant to the exculpation or limitation of any liability of the landlord arising under law or to indemnify the landlord for that liability or its related costs shall be recognized in any rental agreement or in any other agreement between a landlord and tenant.” Awards of attorney fees and warrants of attorney to confess judgment are also prohibited in residential leases. The Ohio Landlord-Tenant Act was enacted to protect residential tenants who are often in an unequal bargaining position from their landlords, and have a lot more to lose (e.g., their homes).

What about boilerplate language in storage unit leases? Often, such units are utilized to store beds, refrigerators and other furniture and appliances typically found in a residence. Do storage unit tenants have the same protection residential tenants have?

What if such boilerplate language in a storage unit lease goes so far as 1) disclaiming landlord liability (for patent and latent defects, failure  to repair and express and implied warranties); 2) imposing minimal, liquidated damages; and 3) requiring the tenant to indemnify landlord? That’s just inconsequential boilerplate, right Mr. Heritage? 

Not according to the Tenth District Court of Appeals in the recent case of Hopkins v. Car Go Self Storage,2019-Ohio-1793.

In Hopkins, the tenant-appellant entered into a lease agreement with appellee, “Car Go Self Storage” to store her personal belongings, including furniture, in appellee’s storage facility. Appellant testified in court that the facility was dry when the items were moved in, but when such items were retrieved, they were damp and covered with mold. Apparently there was a water leak that allowed water into the unit, causing the mold. Appellant sued appellee for breach of contract, negligence and conversion. The trial court held for appellee on all counts, and appellant appealed.

The court of appeals in Hopkins affirmed the decision of the trial court. The appellate court held that the negligence claim was properly dismissed because it was barred by the two-year statute of limitations. The conversion claim was properly dismissed because appellant admitted she was not prevented from recovering her property.

Regarding the contract claim, appellant claimed that her contract contained an implied warranty that the unit was fit and habitable for storage of property, and that such warranty was breached by the landlord. The 10^th District Court of Appeals apparently agreed with appellant that the elements establishing an implied warranty had been met. However, according to the court, such warranty was disclaimed by the landlord’s exculpatory clause that included a broad, but unambiguous release of liability for damage to property; and a clear, express waiver of implied warranties. Citing precedent (similar cases on point), the court in Hopkins simply applied the “general rule,” namely, that “exculpatory causes in lease agreements are generally valid absent a showing of ambiguity or unconscionability” and “if the court can determine intent from the plain [albeit exculpatory] language of the contract, then the court must apply that language as written and refrain from further contract interpretation.”

It is important to note that the Hopkins court did not preclude future challenges to a  storage lease, as unconscionable. Since appellant did not challenge her lease as unconscionability, however, the court in Hopkins simply concluded that “the court cannot address an argument that was not raised.”

So, what is the moral of this story? All language in a  lease is of consequence; boilerplate or not. The best weapon against boilerplate language is the delete key. Negotiate away boilerplate language before signing the lease. Afterwards, odds are you will be no more successful shooting holes through boilerplate language in court, as you would be shooting holes through the 12- inch- thick steel kind of boilerplate.

Ohio Court of Appeals (Hamilton County) Upholds Late Fee Provisions in a Residential Lease

Posted by Connie Carr

On July 26, 2017 the Ohio Court of Appeals, 1^st Appellate District (the Court) issued its opinion in Drake Townhouses L.L.C. v. Woodberry, 2017-Ohio-6968, which relates to a landlord-tenant case appealed from the Hamilton County Municipal Court. The plaintiff landlord is Drake Townhouses L.L.C (Landlord) and the defendant tenants were Daniella Woodberry and Kenneth Williams (Tenant).

Tenant leases a residence from Landlord that was on a month to month lease. Either could terminate upon 30 days written notice, but if the notice was provided at any time after the 1^st of the month, then the 30 days’ notice wasn’t effective until the 1^st of the following month. Whenever Landlord wanted to change a term in the lease, it was required to give Tenant 30 days’ notice of the change and Tenant had 10 days to accept the change or elect to terminate the lease and move out of the residence. A failure to give timely notice results in the lease renewing under the new terms.

In 2014, Tenant received notice of a rent increase effective June 1^st with the option to accept or provide 30 days’ notice to terminate with a move-out date. Tenant chose the latter option but failed to mail the notice with May’s rent to the correct address. Landlord did not receive the notice until May 19^th and had already sent out an eviction notice on May 12^th due to nonpayment of rent.  Tenant further exacerbated the situation by assuming the rent check was lost in the mail, stopped payment on the check, and mailed out a second check. Landlord belatedly received both checks plus the delinquent termination notice and returned the 2 checks to Tenant. In a verbal discussion with a Landlord representative, Tenant agreed to move out by June 1^st and Landlord agreed to cancel the eviction. Landlord did dismiss the eviction but proceeded with its case for past due rent and late fees.

The magistrate and trial court both found in favor of Landlord on all counts except the amount of late fees. The lease called for $10/day and both parties agreed that the late fees per month were capped at $150. The magistrate found that the monthly late fees were not equitable and reduced to $50 per month (i.e., $10/day for maximum of 5 days). After crediting the security deposit funds held by Landlord, the amount the lower court ordered due by Tenant was $850.

Tenant appealed to the Court arguing 3 assignments of error under R.C. Chapter 5321.

First, Tenant contended that the eviction filing in May was contrary to R.C. 5321.17(B) which requires a minimum 30 days’ notice to terminate or not renew a lease.  However, the Court correctly pointed out that Landlord’s notice was not for the termination or non-renewal of the lease but to change a term of the less (i.e., the rent amount) and therefore did not follow the law. Tenant’s decision to not accept the higher rent did not change the Landlord’s notice to one of termination or non-renewal.

Second, Tenant attempted to use her nonpayment breach as a basis for not being subject to the required 30 days’ notice pursuant to R.C. 5321.17(D). As the Court correctly pointed out, that argument goes against the purpose of the code provision. Tenant cannot use her own breach to get out of an obligation.

Third, Tenant contended that late fees in a lease are an unenforceable penalty under contract law and therefore shouldn’t be recoverable by Landlord without proof of actual damages.

The Ohio Supreme Court in Sampson Sales, Inc. v. Honeywell, Inc., 12 Ohio St.3d 27, 465

N.E.2d 392 (1984) set out a test to be used to determine whether a contract provision should be considered liquidated damages (i.e., enforceable) or an unenforceable penalty:

“Where the parties have agreed on the amount of damages, ascertained by estimation and adjustment, and have expressed this agreement in clear and unambiguous terms, the amount so fixed should be treated as liquidated damages and not as a penalty, if the damages would be (1) uncertain as to amount and difficult of proof, and if (2) the contract as a whole is not so manifestly unconscionable, unreasonable, and disproportionate in amount as to justify the conclusion that it does not express the true intention of the parties, and if (3) the contract is consistent with the conclusion that it was the intention of the parties that the damages in the amount stated should follow the breach thereof.”

The Court also pointed out that in 2016, the Ohio Supreme Court further clarified that generally “’per diem measures of damages…is more likely to be an enforceable liquidated damages provision than an unenforceable penalty, and in determining the reasonableness of the amount of liquidated damages, a court must look at the per diem amount, and not to the aggregate amount of liquidated damages in application.” (Boone Coleman Constr., Inc. v. Village of Piketon, 145 Ohio St.3d 450, 2016-Ohio-628, 50 N.E.3d 502)

Based on these prior Ohio Supreme Court decisions, the Court found that late fee provisions in a lease are not a per se unenforceable penalty.

However, the Court did agree with the lower court that, based on R.C. 5321.14(A), the amount of late fees should be reduced to $10/day for the 1^st 5 days (i.e., $50/month). Notably, Landlord had not objected to the lower court’s determination on this point.  The Court went on to further hold that a late fee for June was inappropriate since the parties agreed in mid-May that Tenant would move out by June 1^st.   

Because of the Court’s ruling, the amount Tenant owed Landlord was reduced from $850 to $800. A whole lot of legal fees spent to save that $50. For landlords, this decision is helpful in establishing precedent that reasonable late fees in a lease should be enforceable.

__________________

Ohio Supreme Court Declines to Terminate Gas and Oil Lease Based on Its Plain Language

By: Connie Carr

A recent decision by the Ohio Supreme Court (the “Court”) highlights once again the importance of clearly stating in your contract what you mean or a court will decide for you.

Bohlen v. Anadarko E&P Onshore L.L.C., Slip Opinion No. 2017-Ohio-4025, involves Ronald and Barbara Bohlen, owners of approximately 500 acres in Washington County, Ohio, who entered into a gas and oil lease (the “Lease”) as lessors with Alliance Petroleum Corporation (Alliance) as the lessee. (Alliance later assigned a portion of the Lease to Anadarko.)

The lease provided for a one year term and would continue after the initial one year term for so long as gas or oil or their constituents are produced or are capable of being produced on the Bohlen’s property in paying quantities, in the sole judgment of the lessees, or are the lessee is conducting operations to search for oil or gas. The Lease also provided that Alliance must pay the Bohlen’s a “delay rental” of $5,500 per year “for the privilege of deferring the commencement of a well”, otherwise the Lease became null and void and the parties’ rights under it would terminate. The Lease stated that a well is commenced “when drilling operations have commenced on the leased premises.”

The parties also entered into an addendum to the Lease (the “Addendum”) that provided for a minimum annual royalty payment. If the royalty payments made by Alliance to the Bohlen’s was less than $5,500 in any calendar year, the it must make up the shortfall between the royalty payments and the minimum royalty payment.

Alliance drilled two wells during the first year of the Lease. The second well drilled was successful and produced gas.  The company paid the Bohlen’s $5,500 for the first year of the Lease. Thereafter, it paid royalty payments based on the gas produced each year from 2008 through and including 2013. The annual royalties paid in those years never reached nor exceeded $5,500.

The Bohlen’s filed a declaratory action against Alliance and Anadarko in the trial court requesting the court issue an order declaring the forfeiture of the Lease. Both sides of the case filed motions of summary judgment asking the court to issue a judgment in favor of their arguments. The Bohlen’s argued that (1) the Lease violated public policy and was void because it allowed Alliance and Anadarko to encumber their property indefinitely by paying delay rental payments, (2) the Lease should be terminated by its terms because Alliance and Anadarko did not pay the minimum annual rental of $5,500 as required by the delay rental clause, and (3) the Lease terminated under its own terms due to the lessees failure of oil and gas production.

The trial court agreed with the Bohlen’s arguments and ordered forfeiture of the Lease. Alliance and Anadarko appealed to the Fourth District Court of Appeals, who reversed the trial court on all three arguments. The Bohlen’s appealed to the Court, who upheld the appeals court.

Since it was the review of a summary judgment ruling, the Court conducted its own full review of the arguments made on both sides. The Court has long maintained that gas and oil leases are contracts to which contract law applies.  One key principle of contract law provides that unless there is an ambiguity in the contract language, a court will not give the contract any meaning other than what the plain language of the contract states.

Using this point of review the Court looked at the delay rental language in the Lease. Leases often provide for a primary term and a secondary term when it comes to the duration of the lease. In the Bohlen’ lease, the primary term was one year. The second term provides for a continued duration for so long as gas or oil or their constituents are produced or are capable of being produced on the Bohlen’s property in paying quantities, in the sole judgment of the lessees, or are the lessee is conducting operations to search for oil or gas.

As noted earlier, the Lease provided that it would be void and all rights of the parties to the Lease would terminate if Alliance failed to pay a delay rental of $5,500 per year for the privilege of deferring the commencement of a well.  Alliance drilled a well during the primary term which met the definition of a commencement of a well as defined in the Lease.

The Bohlen’s argued that the delay rental addressed in the Lease with respect to the primary term should be read in conjunction with the Addendum language regarding minimum annual rent and the termination provision in the delay rental clause should be extended beyond the primary term. However, the plain language doesn’t provide for the termination provision in question to apply beyond the application of the delay rental clause and the obligation for payment of delay rental ceased once drilling was commenced. The Court held that underpayments by the lessees under the minimum annual rental provision in the Addendum did not entitle the Bohlen’s to forfeiture of the Lease under the unrelated delay rental clause.  If the parties wanted the termination provision of the delay rental clause to apply to the minimum rental provision they should have stated that clearly in the Lease.

A no-term, perpetual lease violates public policy. The Bohlen’s argued that the Lease allowed the lessees to delay drilling on the undrilled acreage indefinitely by paying the $5,500 minimum annual rent.  The Court disagreed with the Bohlen’s interpretation of the Lease and Addendum, stating that the plain language of the Addendum does not modify the delay rental clause and therefore does not create a no-term, perpetual lease.

Whether the lessees owe the Bohlen’s money for their underpayment of the annual minimum rental is another issue that was not addressed by the Court since it was not raised by the parties in their appeals. The Court the case to the trial court for further proceedings.

As my colleague, Steve Richman, points out in his series of “Watch Your Language” articles for this Blog, “as a general rule, courts will uphold language in commercial agreements, unless it is contrary to statutory law or public policy. They traditionally presume that commercial parties are on more of an equal playing field and are more sophisticated concerning commercial real estate transactions, since both parties to a commercial transaction will usually have attorneys to review their documents. Because of this judicial deference to “commercial language”, you must say what you mean, precisely, or a judge will decide what you meant.”
__________________

If You Walk Away, or Run (from a Lease), the Deal is not Done

By: Stephen D. Richman, Senior Counsel - Kohrman, Jackson & Krantz

You've got to know when to hold 'em
Know when to fold 'em
Know when to walk away
And know when to run
You never count your money
When you're sittin' at the table 

There'll be time enough for countin'
When the dealin's done-

Don Schlitz, 1976 (sung by Kenny Rogers)

The above lyrics could apply as much to a real estate deal, as they do to a game of poker. However, in terms of a commercial real estate lease (in Ohio, and presumably other jurisdictions), it is important to realize that even if you need to walk away, or even run from a lease, rarely will the dealin’ or the deal be done. This tenet of real estate law is largely based on the fact that leases are interests in land, as well as contractual agreements. Consequently, it stands to reason that the abandonment or termination of a possessory interest in land, does not necessarily extinguish the contract and obligations inherent therein. This lesson was recently learned the hard way by the tenant in Tecumseh Landing, L.L.C. v. Bonetzky, 2015-Ohio-2741.

Background of Tecumseh Landing, L.L.C. v. Bonetzky

In May, 2012, defendant-appellant Paula Bonetzky (“Tenant”) and Tecumseh Landing, LLC (“Landlord”) entered into a one year lease agreement for the lease of a portion of real estate in Huntsville, OH. At lease inception, the Tenant made a nonrefundable payment of $5,000.00 for the first month’s rent and security deposit. However, shortly after receiving the key and possession of the premises, the Tenant returned the key to the Landlord, indicating that she learned of deficiencies in the premises and did not want to rent the property any more. The Tenant testified that she told the Landlord, “he could take whatever course he needed to, but my course was to back out at that point.  And I left the keys with him and left.”  The Tenant never returned to the property after that and made no further payments to the Landlord.

The Landlord testified that he never told the Tenant that she was being released from her obligations under the lease agreement, and in fact indicated the opposite by stating: “I’m not taking these keys, they’re going to sit here.”

For several months, the keys did in fact sit there while the Landlord made calls to the Tenant which went unanswered and sent a demand notice (for payment of past due rent and late fees) which was returned, unclaimed. Then, in January of 2013, the Landlord e-mailed the Tenant, declaring that “Although your lease is still active …, We intend on subleasing the property to protect our interests in the investment.” The Tenant responded, “I thought I made it clear to you that I was not involved in your operation when I returned your keys to you last May.”

In August of 2013, Landlord filed a Complaint for Breach of Contract and Money Damages in the Logan County Court of Common Pleas alleging that the Tenant breached the lease for failure to pay rent.  Tenant, in her answer, denied breaking the lease, and filed a counterclaim alleging that the Landlord had failed to mitigate its damages. Based upon the testimony at trial, the trial court rendered a judgment in favor of the Landlord on its complaint for damages against the Tenant.  The trial court also found in favor of the Landlord on the Tenant’s counterclaim.

Tenant then appealed the judgement to the Logan County Court of Appeals, claiming that the trial court erred by failing to find that Tenant effectively surrendered the premises (and her requisite lease obligations), and by finding that Landlord effectively mitigated its damages.

The Appellate Court’s Decision/Analysis

The Tecumseh court of appeals basically affirmed the trial court’s decision with regard to all claimed assignments of error, except it did reverse the trial court with respect to its calculation of damages (based upon the court’s failure to properly pro-rate certain expenses paid by the Landlord).

Regarding mitigation of damages, the court of appeals concluded that the burden of proof was on the plaintiff, and the Tenant simply did not provide any affirmative evidence to prove failure to use reasonable efforts to mitigate on the part of the Landlord. On the contrary, the evidence showed that Landlord advertised the property in a newspaper, on Craigslist, eBay, and the company’s website, and that the delay in finding a new tenant was due to the seasonal nature of the business, and Tenant’s non-responsiveness to Landlord’s initial attempts to communicate with the Tenant. The trial court determined that Landlord’s efforts to mitigate were not unreasonable in a “niche market”, and the Logan County Court of Appeals agreed, recognizing that the Ohio Supreme Court’s holding in Frenchtown Square Partnership v. Lemstone, Inc.,2003-Ohio-3648 instructs that “[t]he duty to mitigate requires only reasonable efforts.” 

Regarding surrender, the Tenant argued that she surrendered the leasehold when she returned the keys and that this physical surrender put an end to the lease and discharged her from all further obligations under the term of the lease, including rent.

Using “precedent” (prior case decisions on point), the Tecumseh court of appeals basically held that the law does not work that way; that surrender of premises does not automatically mean the surrender of the lease agreement. According to the court of appeals in Tecumseh, “Ohio law recognizes two instances under which a surrender of a leasehold [and contractual lease obligations] can occur.  The first occurs by an agreement of the parties and must be in writing… and the second type of surrender occurs by operation of law.  This [second] kind of surrender must be a surrender in fact, evidenced by the conduct of the parties to the lease, which implies a mutual agreement to the tenant’s surrender of the lease and landlord’s acquiescence thereto…the intent of the lessor to relieve lessee must be clearly shown.”

Applying the law to the facts, the court of appeals in Tecumseh easily concluded neither of the afore-mentioned instances had occurred. First, the Tenant did not argue and the record did not disclose any written agreement in which the Landlord expressly accepted Tenant’s surrender of the premises and lease obligations.  Second, according to the court, “nothing in the evidence provided in the instant case shows a clear intent on the part of Tecumseh Landing to relieve Bonetzky from the lease.” The evidence more so indicated the opposite. For example, the Landlord testified that he did not formally accept the keys (and told the Tenant their lease was “still active”).  Even had the Landlord formally accepted the keys, the court cited long standing precedent that barring clear intent otherwise, “[a]n acceptance by the landlord of the key to the premises, his advertising for a new tenant, and renting the premises to another upon its vacation by the old tenant,” are not sufficient to constitute a surrender of a lease.

The Tenant did try to argue case law, based upon the holding (in favor of a tenant) in Renaissance Mgt., Inc. v. Jay-Lor Corp., (8th Dist. Cuyahoga), 2011-Ohio-2792 (“A new lease agreement is a surrender of the old lease, the effect of which is to terminate the former landlord-tenant relationship and to put an end to the old lease”). The court of appeals in Tecumseh, however dismissed the Renaissance case as non-controlling. While the court’s decision did not elaborate upon the case, the facts in the Renaissance case can be easily distinguished from the facts in Tecumseh. In the Renaissance case, the tenant did not relinquish the keys and abandon the premises, and the landlord did not indicate its intent to hold the tenant to its lease. In Renaissance, the landlord approached the tenant, wanting the tenant to change its use. When the tenant found a prospective assignee who would lease the premises in accord with the desired use, the landlord refused to approve the assignment and thereafter, entered into a new lease with tenant’s assignee prospect on widely different terms. That tenant then defaulted, and without notifying the original tenant, the landlord in Renaissance entered into a new lease with a new, subsequent tenant.

The Renaissance case presents one of the few instances where the landlord’s intent indicated acceptance of surrender of the lease, as well as the premises. In fact, it seems that the landlord in Renaissance encouraged, and then acquiesced in the surrender.

The Moral of the Story

What is the moral of this story? For most tenants, neither the dealin’ nor the deal (in the form of contractual lease obligations) will be done by walking away or running from leased premises. Even when there is a forfeiture clause in a lease (declaring the lease to cease or terminate upon the tenant’s failure to pay rent), Ohio courts have interpreted same to indicate Landlord’s intent to render the lease voidable, at landlord’s election vs. automatically void or terminated (See, e.g., Morris Investments v. Sawyer Indian Hill, 63 Ohio Misc. 2d 202 (1993) and cases cited therein).

Consequently, a tenant’s attempts to work out a termination deal with its landlord will most always result in a better deal than walking away and claiming the landlord has accepted the tenant’s surrender of the lease. Negotiating for favorable (to the tenant) assignment and sublease language “couldn’t hoit” either.

For landlords, even though the odds (and the law) are in your favor, why not minimize any doubt by: 1) insisting upon language in the lease to the effect that upon default of the tenant, “no taking or recovering of possession of the Premises shall deprive Landlord of any of its remedies or actions against Tenant, and Tenant shall remain liable for all past or future rent, including all Fixed Rent, Additional Rent, taxes, insurance premiums, and other charges and rent payable by Tenant under this Lease, during the term hereof”, and by 2) reminding tenant of that fact, in writing, prior to, and after landlord’s repossession of the premises.