Force Majeure and Covid: Implications on Tenancies and Rental Payments

| Lindsay Petrone
force majeure

What happens when a tenant does not pay rent citing the financial impacts of the COVID pandemic?  Can such tenant rely on the force majeure provision in the lease to excuse the payment of said rent?  These questions arose in lease contexts throughout the pandemic and a recent Court of Appeal case weighed in on one such situation.  In West Pueblo Partners, LLC v. Stone Brewing Co., LLC (C.A. 1st, April 3, 2023.  Westlaw Cite: 2023 WL 3151827), the court found that West Pueblo Partners, LLC (“Landlord”) could bring an unlawful detainer action to evict Stone Brewing Co., LLC (“Tenant”) and Tenant was not excused from paying rent due to a force majeure event, specifically the COVID pandemic.

In West Pueblo, Tenant operated a brewery and restaurant that was shut down in different capacities due to COVID restrictions during 2020 and 2021.  Tenant alleged they did not have to (and in fact did not) pay rent citing the force majeure provision in the lease which stated in relevant part “if a party is delayed from performing any of its obligations under the lease due to act of god or governmental act, then the time for performance of such party shall be extended for an equivalent amount of time.”  Tenant argued the governmental regulations and business interruptions triggered the force majeure provision and they were excused from paying rent during such time period.

The Court of Appeal reviewed the force majeure provision in the lease (which, to note, did not include a typical qualification that the payment of rent is always required regardless of any force majeure event) and found that if the force majeure event had effectively stopped Tenant from paying rent, that is one thing (for example, a snowstorm blocked the ability to send a wire), but here they had the financial means and chose not to pay the rent due to COVID restrictions and negative impacts on their business.  The Court of Appeal also dug into prior cases analyzing force majeure provisions generally and reiterated that “the qualifying event must have still caused a party’s timely performance under the contract to become impossible or unreasonably expensive.”  The Court of Appeal found that force majeure events which merely make performance unprofitable or more difficult or expensive do not suffice to excuse a contractual obligation.

The West Pueblo court did repeatedly note that Tenant admitted it had the financial means to pay the rent but elected not to do so.  This was a relevant consideration for the Court of Appeal when it reviewed other (out of state) cases on the subject which held certain tenants were excused from paying rent due to COVID and force majeure considerations.  In those cases, the tenants could not pay rent due to COVID because they did not have the financial ability to do so.  Here, Tenant was a company with multiple operations and admitted it could have paid the rental amounts due, but obviously had dramatically less income due to the restrictions.

The West Pueblo case highlights that although a party’s performance may be delayed if they are unable to act due to the force majeure event, it does not necessarily excuse them from performing said action if it was just more expensive or much harder to do so.  It must be impossible or egregiously expensive to comply in order to warrant excusing a contractual obligation.  Even COVID restrictions, which decimated restaurants’ ability to make money, do not necessarily insulate such tenants from their obligations under their leases.  This is especially true if the tenant objectively has the means to make the rental payment otherwise.

 

Authored by Reuben, Junius & Rose, LLP Attorney Lindsay Petrone.

The issues discussed in this update are not intended to be legal advice and no attorney-client relationship is established with the recipient.  Readers should consult with legal counsel before relying on any of the information contained herein.  Reuben, Junius & Rose, LLP is a full service real estate law firm.  We specialize in land use, development and entitlement law.  We also provide a wide range of transactional services, including leasing, acquisitions and sales, formation of limited liability companies and other entities, lending/workout assistance, subdivision and condominium work.

Cotenancy Provision Upheld and not Deemed an Unenforceable Penalty

| Lindsay Petrone
cotenancy

JJD-HOV Elk Grove v. Jo-Ann Stores, LLC (80 Cal.App.5th 409) (“JJD-HOV”)[1] highlights that a court is unlikely to intervene and insert terms in a negotiated contract even if one party receives a windfall upon the realization of the contract’s terms.  In JJD-HOV, a tenant in a shopping center, Jo-Ann Stores, had a lease with the owner, JJD-HOV Elk Grove, which provided that if a condition arose where the shopping center either had less than (i) three operating anchor tenants or (ii) 60% of the center leased, then Jo-Ann Stores would pay a stipulated lower rent until either or both conditions were resolved.  This is typically called a “cotenancy provision” and can be included in shopping center retail leases to encourage a bustling shopping center and customers on-site to shop.  Upon the occurrence of less than three operating anchor tenants, Jo-Ann Stores paid the reduced stipulated rent and JJD-HOV Elk Grove sued alleging that the cotenancy provision was an unenforceable penalty.

JJD-HOV Elk Grove relied on a prior case, Grand Prospect Partners, LP v. Ross Dress for Less, Inc. (“Grand Prospect”) in which that court of appeal distinguished the general rule that courts enforce contracts as written and held the cotenancy provision in Grand Prospect was an unenforceable penalty because of a lack of a proportional relationship between the forfeiture compelled and the damages or harm that might actually follow from the failure to perform the covenant or satisfy the condition.  In Grand Prospect, they relied on the concept of a cotenancy provision as a liquidated damages provision since they are fixing the rent ahead of time upon the condition not being fulfilled.  There, the court found that the harm to Ross (which was essentially zero dollars) was not in any way proportional to the remedy (in that case, they paid no rent upon such cotenancy condition not being satisfied), thus the liquidated damages provision was deemed a penalty and unenforceable.

Liquidated damages is a contract provision prescribing in advance the payment to one party as damages for a breach of the contract by the other party.  The damages amount should be reasonable for the applicable breach otherwise it could be deemed an unenforceable penalty.  In JJD-HOV, the court declined to find a cotenancy provision akin to a liquidated damages provision because the lease did not state that reduced occupancy in the shopping center resulted in JJD-HOV Elk Grove’s breach of the lease, only that the condition was not satisfied.  Further, unlike in Grand Prospect, this court held that the alternate rent paid should not be considered “damages”, just two different rental rates, similar to paying a higher amount when a tenant holds over in a space after the lease termination date.  Finally, the JJD-HOV court found that the parties negotiated the lease in an arms-length transaction and were hesitant to alter a negotiated contract, even if one party (in this case, Jo-Ann Stores) received a windfall when paying the lower stipulated rent.

JJD-HOV declined to follow the Grand Prospect holding that a cotenancy provision could be held unenforceable if the predetermined reduction in rent did not have a reasonable relationship to the harm the parties anticipated to be caused by the failure in condition.  Instead, the court relied on the general rule that it will not alter a contract negotiated in good faith even if one party receives a windfall because of its terms.  JJD-HOV reminds us that courts may take a more laissez-faire approach if a contract is negotiated, even if inherently unfair, unless a provision expressly violates a specific law.

[1] The JJD-HOV case is under review.  We will update if further action is taken.

 

Authored by Reuben, Junius & Rose, LLP Attorney Lindsay Petrone.

The issues discussed in this update are not intended to be legal advice and no attorney-client relationship is established with the recipient.  Readers should consult with legal counsel before relying on any of the information contained herein.  Reuben, Junius & Rose, LLP is a full service real estate law firm.  We specialize in land use, development and entitlement law.  We also provide a wide range of transactional services, including leasing, acquisitions and sales, formation of limited liability companies and other entities, lending/workout assistance, subdivision and condominium work.

Prop. 21 – Another Attempted Costa-Hawkins Takedown

| Michael Corbett
Costa-Hawkins

This November, California voters will be asked for the second time in as many years to overturn statewide restrictions on rent control in the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act (“Costa Hawkins”). The following provides a summary of Proposition 21, named by its proponents as the Rent Affordability Act (“Prop. 21”), and its potential implications for residential landlords and tenants in California.

Prop. 10 and Costa-Hawkins

Its predecessor, Proposition 10, was rejected by nearly 60% of voters in 2018. It would have repealed Costa-Hawkins and allowed local governments to adopt rent control on any type of rental housing.  Costa-Hawkins, passed in 1995, allows local governments to enact and use rent control, except on (a) housing that was first occupied after February 1, 1995, and (b) certain classes of housing units, such as condominiums, townhouses, and single-family homes.  Landlords protected by Costa-Hawkins are currently allowed to increase rent to market rates when a tenant vacates a unit.

Prop. 21

If approved by voters, Prop. 21 would allow local governments to adopt rent control on housing units, except for (a) housing first occupied within the last fifteen (15) years and (b) units owned by natural persons who own no more than two (2) housing units with separate titles, such as single-family homes, condominiums, and certain duplexes, or subdivided interests, such as community apartment projects and stock cooperatives.  Prop. 21 would continue to allow local limits on annual rent increases to be more restrictive than the current statewide limit.  For vacancies where the previous tenant voluntarily vacated, abandoned or was lawfully evicted from a dwelling unit, Prop. 21 would impose, over the first three (3) years of a new tenancy, a combined rent increase cap of fifteen percent (15%) from the rental rate in effect for the immediately preceding tenancy.  This three-year rent increase cap would be in addition to any rent increases otherwise authorized by local law.

Tenant Protection Act of 2019

Prop. 21 follows the January 2020 roll-out of the Tenant Protection Act of 2019, which enacted a statewide rent control cap on annual rent increases of five percent (5%) plus the percentage change in the Consumer Price Index or ten percent (10%), whichever is lower.  The Tenant Protection Act of 2019, while considered to provide among the strongest state-implemented rent increase caps and renter protections in the country, does not affect vacancy decontrol, meaning landlords are currently able to set initial rents for new tenancies.  If passed, Prop. 21 would effectively foreclose the ability of landlords now protected by Costa-Hawkins to set initial rents at market rates if it would result in more than a fifteen percent (15%) increase from the prior tenant’s rental rate.

Support of Prop. 21

Proponents of Prop. 21 contend that the measure would provide more financial security for renters, reduce homelessness, and help alleviate a statewide housing affordability crisis.  The Prop. 21 campaign is sponsored by the Aids Healthcare Foundation, and notable supporters include Senator Bernie Sanders, House Representative Maxine Waters, the California Democratic Party, and the ACLU of southern California.

Opposition to Prop. 21

Opponents of Prop. 21 posit the proposed statutory changes would hurt renters by discouraging private sector builders from bringing more affordable housing units to market and diminish property values, resulting in less revenue for communities.  Californians for Responsible Housing is leading the campaign in opposition to this initiative, with other opponents including Governor Gavin Newsom, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Association, California NAACP State Conference, and Congress of California Seniors.

Votes Needed to Pass

For Prop. 21 to pass and become state law, greater than fifty percent (50%) of the votes cast for this proposition must vote “yes”.

 

Authored by Reuben, Junius & Rose, LLP Attorney Michael Corbett.

The issues discussed in this update are not intended to be legal advice and no attorney-client relationship is established with the recipient.  Readers should consult with legal counsel before relying on any of the information contained herein.  Reuben, Junius & Rose, LLP is a full service real estate law firm.  We specialize in land use, development and entitlement law.  We also provide a wide range of transactional services, including leasing, acquisitions and sales, formation of limited liability companies and other entities, lending/workout assistance, subdivision and condominium work.