assignment of lease without consent

Assignment and Assumption of Lease and Landlord Consent

You can use a Lease Assignment to outline the terms for assigning the responsibilities of a lease to someone else. You need to make sure that the landlord has given his or her consent for the Lease Assignment to go into effect. The terms of assignment, consent of the lessor, and acceptance by the assignee are covered in this Lease Assignment, including the length of the assignment, consent of the person taking over the lease, and acceptance by you, the current lease holder. A Lease Assignment transfers the rights and obligations of an existing lease from one tenant to another.

Any [ GREEN ] highlighted language is intended to be filled in by the user. Any [ YELLOW ] highlighted language is considered optional or conditional by the attorney community. Consult with an attorney before using this document. This document is not a substitute for legal advice or services. Refer to our Terms of Use for more details.

This form has been prepared for general informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice, advertising, a solicitation, or tax advice. Transmission of this form and the information contained herein is not intended to create, and receipt thereof does not constitute formation of, an attorney-client relationship. You should not rely upon this document or information for any purpose without seeking legal advice from an appropriately licensed attorney, including without limitation to review and provide advice on the terms of this form, the appropriate approvals required in connection with the transactions contemplated by this form, and any securities law and other legal issues contemplated by this form or the transactions contemplated by this form.

ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION OF LEASE AND LANDLORD CONSENT

THIS ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION OF LEASE AND LANDLORD CONSENT (" Agreement ") is effective as of _________________ (the “ Effective Date ”), between _____________ a ________________ corporation (" Assignor "), and ________________ a ________________ corporation (" Assignee ") who agree as follows:

A. Lease . ________________ a Delaware corporation (“ Landlord ”), and Assignor, as tenant, are parties to that certain Master Lease dated as of ________________ (the “ Master Lease ”), pursuant to which Assignor leased from Landlord, and Landlord leased to Assignor, certain premises consisting of approximately ________________ rentable square feet located ________________ (the “ Leased Premises ”) in the building with a street address of ________________________________ (the “ Building ”). A true, correct and complete copy of the Lease is attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and is by this reference incorporated herein and made a part hereof. The Lease is scheduled to expire on ________________.

B. Assignor desires to transfer and assign all of its right, title and interest, as subtenant, in, to, and under the Lease to Assignee, and Assignee wishes to assume all of Assignor's duties, liabilities, and obligations thereunder.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained in this Agreement and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is acknowledged, the parties mutually covenant and agree as follows:

1. Assignment . Assignor, for and in consideration of the payment of rent and the performance of all of the Lease covenants by Assignee as successor subtenant under the Lease, does hereby grant, assign, and convey to Assignee all of Assignor’s right, title, and interest in and to the Lease, for the residue of the term of the Lease, at the rent and other charges set forth in the Lease and subject to the conditions contained in the Lease and henceforth to be performed and observed by Assignee.

2. Performance of Lease Covenants and Conditions; Assumption . For the benefit of Assignor and Landlord and Landlord, Assignee hereby assumes all rights, duties, and obligations of the subtenant under the Lease and Assignee hereby covenants and agrees to perform all of the duties and obligations of the subtenant pursuant to the Lease from and after the Effective Date as if Assignee were the original subtenant thereunder. Assignee shall make all payments of rent, additional rent, and other sums due under the Lease from the subtenant thereunder, for the period from and after the Effective Date, when due and payable strictly in accordance with the terms, covenants, and conditions of the Lease.

3. Letter of Credit . Within three (3) business days following the full execution of this Agreement by the parties hereto, Landlord’s execution of its consent and Landlord’s execution of the Landlord’s Consent, each as set forth below, Assignee shall deliver to Landlord a letter of credit which satisfies the requirements of Section 21 of the Lease. Within three (3) business days following Landlord’s receipt of such Letter of Credit from Assignee, Landlord shall return the original Letter of Credit to Assignor and thereafter such original Letter of Credit shall be void and of no further force or effect.

4. Possession . Assignor hereby tenders, and Assignee hereby accepts, possession of the Premises in its “AS IS,” “WHERE IS,” AND “WITH ALL FAULTS” condition. Assignor makes no representations or warranties with respect to the physical condition of the Premises or the suitability thereof for Assignee’s use.

5. Assignment and Subleasing . Subject to the provisions of the Lease, Assignee may assign the Lease, or sub-lease all or any portion of the Premises, but Assignee must also obtain Assignor’s prior written consent, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed. As a condition of granting such consent to an assignment, Assignor may require that the new assignee assume the obligations of the subtenant under the Lease and take subject to all of the terms and conditions contained both in the Lease and this Agreement and as a condition of consenting to any lease, Assignor may require that each sublessee agree, by an express provision in its lease, to be bound by all of the terms and provisions of the Lease and this Agreement. If Assignee assigns the Lease or leases the Premises, in whole or in part, Assignee shall nevertheless remain liable to Assignor for the full performance of Assignee’s obligations under the Lease and this Agreement.

6. Entry . Assignee agrees that Assignor may at any time during the regular business hours enter upon the Premises for purpose of inspecting the same.

7. Insurance . Assignee agrees to maintain in effect all of the insurance coverages required to be maintained by the subtenant under the Lease and to provide evidence of such insurance to Assignor from time to time. Assignee agrees to name Assignor as an additional insured under the general liability insurance carried by Assignee with respect to the Premises.

8. Lease Amendments or Modifications . Assignee shall not enter into any lease amendments or modifications of the Lease with Landlord without the prior written consent of Assignor, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed.

9. Broker Commissions; Fees . Assignee acknowledges and agrees that Assignee shall be solely responsible for the payment of all broker commissions in connection with this Agreement. Each of Assignee and Assignor represents and warrants to the other that it has taken no act nor permitted any act to be taken pursuant to which it or the other party hereto might incur any claim for brokerage commissions or finder’s fees in connection with the execution of this Agreement other than Jones Lang LaSalle representing Assignee and CBRE representing Assignor. Each party agrees to indemnify, defend and hold the other harmless against all liabilities and costs arising from a breach of such representation and warranty, including, without limitation, for attorneys’ fees and costs in connection therewith. In addition, Assignee shall pay any fees charged by Landlord and Landlord in connection with obtaining the consent of each of them.

10. Indemnification. Assignee hereby indemnifies and holds Assignor and its officers, directors, shareholders, members, affiliates, representatives, agents, employees, successors and assigns harmless from and against all claims, damages, demands, losses, expenses and costs incurred, arising out of, or in connection with Assignee’s failure, from and after the Effective Date, to observe, perform and discharge any and all of the subtenant’s covenants, obligations and liabilities in connection with the Lease. Assignor hereby indemnifies and holds Assignee and its officers, directors, shareholders, members, affiliates, representatives, agents, employees, successors and assigns harmless from and against all claims, damages, demands, losses, expenses and costs incurred, arising out of, or in connection with Assignor’s failure to the extent accruing prior to the Effective Date, to observe, perform and discharge any and all of the subtenant’s covenants, obligations and liabilities in connection with the Lease.

11. Defaults under Lease . Within two (2) days after receiving any notice from Landlord relating to the performance of the obligations of the subtenant under the Lease, Assignee shall send a copy of such notice to Assignor. Within two (2) days after receiving any notice from Landlord relating to the performance of any obligations of the subtenant under the Lease, Assignor shall send a copy of such notice to Assignee. If Assignee is in default under the provisions of the Lease or this Agreement, and if Assignee fails to cure such default within fifteen (15) days after receipt of notice from Landlord or Assignor specifying the nature of such default with respect to non-monetary defaults and two (2) business days with respect to monetary defaults, then Assignor may reenter the Premises, with or without process of law, and cure such default, in which event Assignee shall promptly reimburse Assignor for all costs and expenses with regard thereto, or, at Assignor’s option, Assignor may repossess and enjoy the Premises as of Assignor’s first and former estate and either declare this Agreement to be terminated at no further force or effect or, without terminating the same, Assignor may reassign the Lease to itself or others or sublet the Premises to itself or others, in whole or in part, for the account of Assignee, in which event Assignee shall promptly reimburse Assignor for any rent deficiencies and other charges, costs, reasonable attorneys’ fees, or expenses so incurred by Assignor with respect thereto.

12. Attorneys’ Fees . In any action between the parties to enforce any of the terms or provisions of this Agreement, the prevailing party in the action shall be entitled to recover from the non-prevailing party, in addition to damages, injunctive relief or other relief, its reasonable costs and expenses, including, without limitation, costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees, as the court shall determine. Any such attorneys’ fees and other expenses incurred by either party in enforcing a judgment in its favor under this Agreement shall be recoverable separately from and in addition to any other amount included in such judgment, and such attorneys’ fees obligation is intended to be severable from the other provisions of this Agreement and to survive and not be merged into any such judgment.

13. Successors and Assigns . This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties and their respective successors and assigns.

14. Severability . If any provision of this Agreement shall be held invalid or unenforceable for any reason and to any extent, the remainder of this Agreement shall not be affected, but shall be enforced to the greatest extent permitted by law.

15. Governing Law . This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California.

16. Counterparts . This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts. All such counterparts, when taken together, shall comprise the fully executed Agreement. Signatures of the parties transmitted by facsimile or electronic mail in PDF format shall be deemed to constitute originals and may be relied upon, for all purposes, as binding the transmitting party hereto. The parties intend to be bound by the signatures transmitted by facsimile or electronic mail in PDF format, are aware that the other party will rely on such signature, and hereby waive any defenses to the enforcement of the terms of this Agreement based on the form of the signature.

17. Notices . For purposes of this Agreement, the notice addresses for Assignee and Assignor shall be as follows:

_____________________

Attn: ________________

18. Warranty and Authority . Each party represents that this Agreement has been executed by its duly authorized representative.

19. Condition Precedent . This Agreement is not and shall not be effective unless and until each of Landlord and Landlord provides its consent to this Agreement. If either Landlord or Landlord fails to consent to this Agreement with thirty (30) days after delivery of this Agreement to Landlord and Landlord then either Assignor or Assignee may terminate this Agreement by written notice thereof to the other party at any time prior to receipt of Landlord’s and Landlord’s consent and in such event neither Assignor nor Assignee shall have any obligations to the other party under this Agreement. Assignee shall reasonably cooperate with Assignor to obtain Landlord’s and Landlord’s consent, including providing Landlord and Landlord with financial information and other information requested by Landlord and Landlord

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement has been executed as of the Effective Date set forth above.

LANDLORD’S CONSENT

By its execution below, Landlord consents to this assignment of the Lease to Assignee and acknowledges the continuance of the Lease by and between Assignee and Landlord. Landlord is not a party to the assignment and executes this document for the limited purpose of granting its consent. The consent to this assignment shall not act as or be deemed as a waiver of Landlord’s right to consent to any subsequent assignment or lease in accordance with the terms of the Lease. Notwithstanding the foregoing, so long as Assignee delivers to Landlord a letter of credit which satisfies the requirements of Section 21 of the Lease then within three (3) business days following Landlord’s receipt of such Letter of Credit from Assignee, Landlord shall return the original Letter of Credit to Assignor and thereafter such original Letter of Credit shall be void and of no further force or effect.

Landlord, Inc.

By:

Its:

LANDLORD CONSENT TO ASSIGNMENT OF LEASE

By its execution below, Landlord consents to this assignment of the Lease to Assignee and acknowledges the continuance of the Lease by and between Assignee and Landlord. Landlord is not a party to the assignment and executes this document for the limited purpose of granting its consent. Landlord’s consent shall not relieve or discharge Landlord from any of its obligations under the Master Lease, whether or not such Default should occur by fault of the Assignee. The consent to this assignment shall not act as or be deemed as a waiver of Landlord’s right to consent to any subsequent assignment or lease in accordance with the terms of the Master Lease.

Landlord’s consent is conditioned upon payment by Landlord of all Rent and any other charges due under the Master Lease at the time of the assignment (notwithstanding that such charges may be billed following the date of the assignment).

a ________________ corporation

By:

Its:

(see attached)

Hire the top business lawyers and save up to 60% on legal fees

Content Approved by UpCounsel

Download Document

Located in the U.S.?

Not located in the u.s., optional, will help us get you started faster.

LEGAL NOTICE: We strongly suggest you have this document customized to your unique situation, because you might require additional clause(s) to better protect your business from potential legal issues.

LEGAL NOTICE: We strongly suggest you customize this document to suit you or your client's unique situation. You may require additional clause(s) to better protect you or your client’s business from potential legal issues.

Want to grow your practice?

Create your profile today and gain access to free marketing and practice management tools. Once your profile is complete, you will be reviewed for the UpCounsel Marketplace where approved attorneys can find and manage new or existing clients.

If you do not see an email from UpCounsel in the next few minutes, please check your spam box. Add: [email protected] to your email address book. This will help ensure future email delivery.

Share this document

Send to your friends, partners or attorney..

Assignment of Lease

Jump to Section

What is an assignment of lease.

The assignment of lease is a title document that transfers all rights possessed by a lessee or tenant to a property to another party. The assignee takes the assignor’s place in the landlord-tenant relationship.

You can view an example of a lease assignment here .

How Lease Assignment Works

In cases where a tenant wants to or needs to get out of their lease before it expires, lease assignment provides a legal option to assign or transfer rights of the lease to someone else. For instance, if in a commercial lease a business leases a place for 12 months but the business moves or shuts down after 10 months, the person can transfer the lease to someone else through an assignment of the lease. In this case, they will not have to pay rent for the last two months as the new assigned tenant will be responsible for that.

However, before the original tenant can be released of any responsibilities associated with the lease, other requirements need to be satisfied. The landlord needs to consent to the lease transfer through a “License to Assign” document. It is crucial to complete this document before moving on to the assignment of lease as the landlord may refuse to approve the assignment.

Difference Between Assignment of Lease and Subletting

A transfer of the remaining interest in a lease, also known as assignment, is possible when implied rights to assign exist. Some leases do not allow assignment or sharing of possessions or property under a lease. An assignment ensures the complete transfer of the rights to the property from one tenant to another.

The assignor is no longer responsible for rent or utilities and other costs that they might have had under the lease. Here, the assignee becomes the tenant and takes over all responsibilities such as rent. However, unless the assignee is released of all liabilities by the landlord, they remain responsible if the new tenant defaults.

A sublease is a new lease agreement between the tenant (or the sublessor) and a third-party (or the sublessee) for a portion of the lease. The original lease agreement between the landlord and the sublessor (or original tenant) still remains in place. The original tenant still remains responsible for all duties set under the lease.

Here are some key differences between subletting and assigning a lease:

Under a sublease, the original lease agreement still remains in place.
The original tenant retains all responsibilities under a sublease agreement.
A sublease can be for less than all of the property, such as for a room, general area, portion of the leased premises, etc.
Subleasing can be for a portion of the lease term. For instance, a tenant can sublease the property for a month and then retain it after the third-party completes their month-long sublet.
Since the sublease agreement is between the tenant and the third-party, rent is often negotiable, based on the term of the sublease and other circumstances.
The third-party in a sublease agreement does not have a direct relationship with the landlord.
The subtenant will need to seek consent of both the tenant and the landlord to make any repairs or changes to the property during their sublease.

Here is more on an assignment of lease here .

Jeremiah C.

Parties Involved in Lease Assignment

There are three parties involved in a lease assignment – the landlord or owner of the property, the assignor and the assignee. The original lease agreement is between the landlord and the tenant, or the assignor. The lease agreement outlines the duties and responsibilities of both parties when it comes to renting the property. Now, when the tenant decides to assign the lease to a third-party, the third-party is known as the assignee. The assignee takes on the responsibilities laid under the original lease agreement between the assignor and the landlord. The landlord must consent to the assignment of the lease prior to the assignment.

For example, Jake is renting a commercial property for his business from Paul for two years beginning January 2013 up until January 2015. In January 2014, Jake suffers a financial crisis and has to close down his business to move to a different city. Jake doesn’t want to continue paying rent on the property as he will not be using it for a year left of the lease. Jake’s friend, John would soon be turning his digital business into a brick-and-mortar store. John has been looking for a space to kick start his venture. Jake can assign his space for the rest of the lease term to John through an assignment of lease. Jake will need to seek the approval of his landlord and then begin the assignment process. Here, Jake will be the assignor who transfers all his lease related duties and responsibilities to John, who will be the assignee.

You can read more on lease agreements here .

ContractsCounsel Assignment of Lease Image

Image via Pexels by RODNAE

Assignment of Lease From Seller to Buyer

In case of a residential property, a landlord can assign his leases to the new buyer of the building. The landlord will assign the right to collect rent to the buyer. This will allow the buyer to collect any and all rent from existing tenants in that property. This assignment can also include the assignment of security deposits, if the parties agree to it. This type of assignment provides protection to the buyer so they can collect rent on the property.

The assignment of a lease from the seller to a buyer also requires that all tenants are made aware of the sale of the property. The buyer-seller should give proper notice to the tenants along with a notice of assignment of lease signed by both the buyer and the seller. Tenants should also be informed about the contact information of the new landlord and the payment methods to be used to pay rent to the new landlord.

You can read more on buyer-seller lease assignments here .

Get Help with an Assignment of Lease

Do you have any questions about a lease assignment and want to speak to an expert? Post a project today on ContractsCounsel and receive bids from real estate lawyers who specialize in lease assignment.

Meet some of our Assignment of Lease Lawyers

Legal services cost too much, and are often of low quality. I have devoted my law practice to providing the best work at the most affordable price—in everything from defending small businesses against patent trolls to advising multinational corporations on regulatory compliance to steering couples through a divorce.

Jo Ann has been practicing for over 20 years, working primarily with high growth companies from inception through exit and all points in between. She is skilled in Mergers & Acquisitions, Contractual Agreements (including founders agreements, voting agreements, licensing agreements, terms of service, privacy policies, stockholder agreements, operating agreements, equity incentive plans, employment agreements, vendor agreements and other commercial agreements), Corporate Governance and Due Diligence.

Creative, results driven business & technology executive with 24 years of experience (15+ as a business/corporate lawyer). A problem solver with a passion for business, technology, and law. I bring a thorough understanding of the intersection of the law and business needs to any endeavor, having founded multiple startups myself with successful exits. I provide professional business and legal consulting. Throughout my career I've represented a number large corporations (including some of the top Fortune 500 companies) but the vast majority of my clients these days are startups and small businesses. Having represented hundreds of successful crowdfunded startups, I'm one of the most well known attorneys for startups seeking CF funds. I hold a Juris Doctor degree with a focus on Business/Corporate Law, a Master of Business Administration degree in Entrepreneurship, A Master of Education degree and dual Bachelor of Science degrees. I look forward to working with any parties that have a need for my skill sets.

Texas licensed attorney specializing for 22 years in Business and Contract law with a focus on construction law and business operations. My services include General Business Law Advisement; Contract Review and Drafting; Legal Research and Writing; Business Formation; Articles or Instructive Writing; and more. I am able to draft and review contracts, and have experience with, contract law and business formation in any state. For more insight into my skills and experience, please feel free to visit my LinkedIn profile or contact me with any questions.

I am a licensed attorney and a member of the California Bar. I graduated from the University of Dayton School of Law's Program in Law and Technology. I love IP, tech transfers, licensing, and how the internet and developing technology is changing the legal landscape. I've interned at both corporations and boutique firms, and I've taken extensive specialized classes in intellectual property and technology law.

Charlotte L.

I hold a B.S. in Accounting and a B.A. in Philosophy from Virginia Tech (2009). I received my J.D. from the University of Virginia School of Law in 2012. I am an associate member of the Virginia Bar and an active member of the DC bar. Currently, I am working as a self-employed legal consultant and attorney. Primarily my clients are start-up companies for which I perform various types of legal work, including negotiating and drafting settlement, preparing operating agreements and partnership agreements, assisting in moving companies to incorporate in new states and setting up companies to become registered in a state, assisting with employment matters, drafting non-disclosure agreements, assisting with private placement offerings, and researching issues on intellectual property, local regulations, privacy laws, corporate governance, and many other facets of the law, as the need arises. I have previously practiced as an attorney at a small DC securities law firm and worked at Deloitte Financial Advisory Services LLC. My work experience is dynamic and includes many short-term and long term experience that span across areas such as maintaining my own blog, freelance writing, and dog walking. My diverse background has provided me with a stong skill set that can be easily adapted for new areas of work and indicates my ability to quickly learn for a wide array of clients.

With over 25 years of experience in the technology sector, I am a strategic business counsel, outsourced general counsel, and a leader of high-performing legal teams aimed to help maximize the efficiency of all stakeholders. I recently joined the renewable energy space with the addition of a new client on its way to becoming the first Chinese battery company to build a battery manufacturing presence in the US beginning with a 1+ GWh cell and pack plant, and a domestic anode and cathode plant. In my most recent full-time role, I served as the Sr. Director and Assistant General Counsel at SMART Global Holdings, where I served as the general counsel for the HPC and AI division of this publicly traded holding company, comprised of four companies, before becoming the global head of the commercial legal function across all portfolio companies, including two multinational industry leaders. During much of my career, I provided outside legal services on a recurring basis for several years advising several high growth start-ups and venture firms as well as house hold names, and also led one of the country's fastest growing infrastructure resellers and managed services providers. My core competencies include contract review, commercial negotiation, legal operations, information security, privacy, supply chain and procurement, alliances and channel sales, HR, and general corporate. I am passionate about leveraging my legal skills to achieve business solutions, supporting innovation and growth in the technology sector, and helping maximize the commercial flow and efficiency at growing companies. I hold an undergraduate business degree, a JD, a MSBA Taxation, and certifications from the California Bar Association, Six Sigma, and ISM.

Find the best lawyer for your project

Contract to lease land from a church.

I’m planning on leasing land from a church. Putting a gym on the property. And leasing it back to the school.

Ok; first step is that you will need a leasing contract with the church. Ask them to prepare one for you so you would just need an attorney to review the agreement and that should cost less than if you had to be the party to pay a lawyer to draft it from scratch. You need to ensure that the purpose of the lease is clearly stated - that you plan to put a gym on the land so that there are no issues if the church leadership changes. Step 2 - you will need a lease agreement with the school that your leasing it do (hopefully one that is similar to the original one your received from the church). Again, please ensure that all the terms that you discuss and agree to are in the document; including length of time, price and how to resolve disputes if you have one. I hope this is helpful. If you would like me to assist you further, you can contact me on Contracts Counsel and we can discuss a fee for my services. Regards, Donya Ramsay (Gordon)

How It Works

Post Your Project

Get Free Bids to Compare

Hire Your Lawyer

Real Estate lawyers by top cities

Austin Real Estate Lawyers
Boston Real Estate Lawyers
Chicago Real Estate Lawyers
Dallas Real Estate Lawyers
Denver Real Estate Lawyers
Houston Real Estate Lawyers
Los Angeles Real Estate Lawyers
New York Real Estate Lawyers
Phoenix Real Estate Lawyers
San Diego Real Estate Lawyers
Tampa Real Estate Lawyers

Assignment of Lease lawyers by city

Austin Assignment of Lease Lawyers
Boston Assignment of Lease Lawyers
Chicago Assignment of Lease Lawyers
Dallas Assignment of Lease Lawyers
Denver Assignment of Lease Lawyers
Houston Assignment of Lease Lawyers
Los Angeles Assignment of Lease Lawyers
New York Assignment of Lease Lawyers
Phoenix Assignment of Lease Lawyers
San Diego Assignment of Lease Lawyers
Tampa Assignment of Lease Lawyers

related contracts

Addendum to Lease
ALTA Statement
Apartment Lease
Apartment Rental Agreement
Boundary Line Agreement
Brokerage Agreement
Building Contract
Building Lease
Business Office Lease Agreement
Buyer Agency Agreement

Want to speak to someone?

Get in touch below and we will schedule a time to connect!

Find lawyers and attorneys by city

Practical Law

Assignment of lease without consent

Practical law uk legal update 0-107-0172 (approx. 2 pages).

Landlord and Tenant: Tax
United Kingdom

Home > Leasing > Consent to Lease Assignment – Do I Really Have to be Reasonable?

Consent to Lease Assignment – Do I Really Have to be Reasonable?

Most leases contain an assignment provision providing that a tenant must obtain their landlord’s consent prior to assigning (or subletting) its interest in a lease. However, if the lease is silent regarding the standard of Landlord’s consent, must the landlord be reasonable in granting or withholding that consent? The answer: it depends on when the lease was signed.

For leases that were executed on or after September 23, 1983, a landlord must have a commercially reasonable objection to the proposed assignee or subtenant, or to their proposed use. The cases Cohen v. Ratinoff , 147 Cal. App. 3d 321 (1983), and Kendall v. Ernest Podesta, Inc., 40 Cal. 3d 488 (1985), reversed prior state law which had previously allowed landlords to withhold consent in their sole and absolute discretion, without the need to be reasonable. That holding was codified in California Civil Code (“Code”) §1995.260 , which states that in the absence of a standard for giving or withholding consent, the transfer restriction will be constructed to include an implied standard that the landlord’s consent may not be unreasonably withheld.

For leases that were executed prior to September 23, 1983, and with assignment provisions that do not include a standard for landlord consent, landlords may be unreasonable when withholding their consent (See Code §1996.270 – legislative findings and declarations- confirming that Code §1995.260 does not apply retroactively to leases executed prior to the date of the Cohen case).

To avoid having a jury determine whether a landlord was acting reasonably when withholding consent, for new leases, it is always advisable to include specific examples of what constitutes grounds for a landlord to reasonably withhold its consent to a requested assignment; the Kendall case provides many such examples.

About This Blog

The Real Estate & Environmental Law Blog aspires to inform the California building and real estate industry about commercial real estate legal developments, recent deals, new projects and the status of the national and regional real estate market. The blog’s objective is to serve as a forum to discuss real estate developments, litigation, regulations, policy and trends.

Stay Connected

Subscribe to this blog by email

Agricultural Law
Food Safety
Construction
Air Quality
Water Quality
Food Safety Modernization Act
Green Chemistry
Hazardous Waste
Due Diligence
Real Estate Development
Real Estate Litigation
Secured Lending and Finance
Uncategorized

Weintraub Blogs

The IP Law Blog
The Labor and Employment Law Blog

Commercial Lease Assignment and Sublet Provisions

A balancing act for landlords and tenants, july 2020 by adam f. aldrich.

This article identifies common problems involved in commercial lease transfers through assignments and subleases. It offers both landlords and tenants tips for solving these problems when negotiating assignment and sublease provisions in leases.

The modern commercial lease is a complex, integrated document that attempts to balance the competing interests of the landlord and tenant. As a result, commercial leases are the subject of much negotiation and are never “one size fits all.” In fact, commercial leases are one of the least standardized documents in real estate practice.

When any commercial lease is to be transferred in part through a sublet or in its entirety through an assignment, the issues multiply. The transfer provisions, which once seemed moot, become operative to determine whether the lease can be transferred and, if so, under what conditions. If, during lease negotiations, the parties overlooked the lease transfer provisions or gave them cursory consideration, they may be unpleasantly surprised by the result. While landlords and tenants have divergent economic interests with respect to transferring the lease, their legitimate concerns can be appropriately addressed through thoughtfully crafted transfer provisions.

This article explores common problems, issues, and solutions encountered in commercial lease transfers through assignments and subleases. It is intended to be useful both to the lawyer who infrequently encounters lease transfer problems and the seasoned practitioner who deals with lease transfer issues every day.

Distinguishing Between an Assignment and Sublease

Assignments and subleases have fundamental differences that are frequently misunderstood. A lease is both a conveyance of an interest in property and a contract. 1 After executing the lease, the landlord and tenant are bound to one another by privity of contract and by privity of estate. As a result, they may each enforce the provisions of the written lease through privity of contract and the promises that arise from privity of estate. 2 Privity of contract allows enforcement of the lease provisions, while privity of estate allows enforcement of only those promises that run with the land. 3

Whether the landlord, tenant/assignor, and subtenant/assignee call their arrangement an assignment or a sublease, courts typically look at the substance of the transaction. In an assignment, a tenant transfers its entire interest in the lease. 4 After assigning its interest in the lease, the assignee has privity of estate with the landlord, but the assignee and the landlord are not in privity of contract unless the assignee assumes the tenant’s obligations under the lease. 5 Assignment of the lease ends the original tenant’s rights to possession, but absent an express release under the lease terms, its liability under the lease continues. 6 This means the original tenant remains secondarily liable for the assignee’s obligations under the lease. Thus, the tenant/assignor may find itself liable at a future date if the assignee fails to perform its obligations under the lease.

In a sublease, however, the tenant transfers less than the remaining term or less than the tenant’s entire interest in the lease, leaving the original tenant with a reversionary interest in the lease. 7 The relationship between the original landlord and the original tenant, including both privity of contract and privity of estate, remains intact, thereby creating the relationship of landlord and tenant between the original tenant (sublandlord) and the new tenant (subtenant). The original landlord and the subtenant have no privity of estate or privity of contract with one another, so the original tenant remains liable for the actions and omissions of the subtenant. 8 However, the subtenant’s rights will terminate with the original lease or when the landlord declares a forfeiture of the tenant’s lease term. 9

A third, less common type of transfer is a partial assignment of a lease. Such assignments are called assignments “pro tanto,” not subleases, because they grant possession of a portion of the leased premises to the new tenant for the balance of the lease term. 10 The landlord now has two tenants and, in effect, two leases. There is little guiding case law on this hybrid lease transfer, so it is not entirely clear whether the assignee has a contractual relationship with the landlord. 11 Due to the vagaries and uncertainties that can result when a transfer of possession encompasses less than all of the space, partial assignments should be avoided. To avoid assignments pro tanto, landlords should consider prohibiting assignments of less than the original tenant’s entire interest in the lease. If a landlord proceeds with a partial assignment, it should clearly document the arrangement, including the rights and remedies of the landlord, original tenant, and new tenant, and acknowledge the transaction as a partial assignment and not a sublease. 12

The accompanying table illustrates the many differences between an assignment, sublease, and partial assignment. 13

Restrictions on Assignments and Subleases

Colorado law favors the free transferability of rights. 14 As a result, landlords frequently attempt to limit the tenant’s right to transfer the lease by including lease provisions specifically restricting the tenant’s right to assign or sublet. Under Colorado law, outright prohibitions against assignments are permissible and are not considered invalid restraints on alienation. 15 Even if outright prohibitions on assignments or subletting are enforced, such provisions “are construed against the restriction.” 16 This means a court generally will construe such stipulations “against the party invoking them.” 17 A breach of the restriction against transfer does not terminate the lease, 18 but may give rise to a claim for default. 19 Generally, tenants in commercial leases negotiate exceptions to strict prohibitions against assignments or subletting because transfer provisions may be their only viable exit strategy if they find they can no longer afford the space or no longer need it.

Consent to Assignments and Subleases

Recognizing that absolute prohibitions are neither favored by the courts nor acceptable to most tenants, some landlords include modified prohibitions in their leases that limit the tenant’s rights to transfer the lease and, if a transfer is permitted, allow the landlord to enforce the lease against both the original tenant and the new tenant to the maximum extent possible. Such provisions may reserve to the landlord, either in its sole discretion or without unreasonably withholding its consent, the right to approve a proposed lease transfer. Although the reservation of the landlord’s right to approve a proposed assignment or sublease is for the landlord’s benefit, 20 the landlord is bound to the standards set out in the lease for consents to an assignment or sublease. 21 Accordingly, once the landlord has established the standards for its consent in the lease, it cannot object to a proposed assignment or sublease if the tenant has met the appropriate requirements.

It is well established in Colorado law that “without a freely negotiated provision in the lease giving the landlord an absolute right to withhold consent, a landlord’s decision to withhold consent must be reasonable.” 22 Thus, if a lease contains a provision against subletting or assignment, but is silent on a landlord’s right to withhold consent, Colorado law forbids the landlord from withholding its consent unreasonably if the tenant tenders a suitable subtenant or assignee to the landlord. 23

Disputes often arise as to what is a ‘‘reasonable” withholding of the landlord’s consent. This debate has led to the enunciation of specific standards of reasonableness. If a lease provision “requires that consent to an assignment will not be unreasonably or arbitrarily withheld, a landlord is held to the standard of conduct of a reasonably prudent person.” 24 Therefore, a landlord must only consider “those factors that relate to a landlord’s interest in preserving the value of the property,” 25 which do not include “[a]rbitrary considerations of personal taste, convenience, or sensibility . . . .” 26 Whether a landlord has acted reasonably is a fact-specific inquiry. 27 Most courts have held that the tenant bears the burden of proving that the landlord acted unreasonably in withholding consent, 28 but some courts have required the landlord to prove it acted reasonably. 29 Courts have been divided on a tenant’s right to terminate a lease where the landlord has been found to have unreasonably withheld consent. 30

There are several reliable rules that courts follow in determining whether a landlord acted reasonably. First, a landlord cannot refuse consent for racial or other discriminatory reasons. 31

Second, a landlord may not deny consent to improve its general economic position or to receive increased rent. 32 However, a landlord may deny consent to protect its interest in the value, condition, and operation of the property or the performance of lease covenants. 33 For example, in Cafeteria Operators L.P. v. AMCAP/Denver Limited Partnership , the tenant leased the premises to run a cafeteria-style restaurant. 34 After several failed attempts to operate the restaurant, the tenant marketed the space to prospective subtenants, including non-cafeteria restaurant owners. 35 When a non-cafeteria restaurant owner expressed interest in subleasing the premises, the tenant sought the landlord’s approval to the proposed sublease, but the landlord refused. The Court found that the landlord reasonably withheld consent because the proposed sublessee would have changed the “character” of the shopping center by operating “the largest restaurant of its kind, raising concerns about lighting, maintenance, traffic, and parking.” 36 Moreover, the subtenant would sell alcohol and stay open late, and its proposed occupancy raised “concerns about security, safety of patrons, and parking requirements.” 37 Similarly, the Court in List v. Dahnke found that the landlord reasonably withheld consent where the landlord determined that a Thai-American restaurant operated by the assignee would not be successful at that location, but the Court did not identify the facts that led the landlord to such conclusion. 38

Third, a court may make a finding of unreasonableness if a landlord refuses consent to a proposed transfer without obtaining relevant information to make its decision. 39 Before making the decision, the landlord should obtain sufficient information on the transferee’s financial condition; the transferee’s experience in operating its business; how the premises are to be used; projected sales, gross income, and income per square foot; and, in the case of a sublease, the size of the subleased space. 40

Fourth, courts may consider how long it takes the landlord to make the decision on the requested assignment. If the landlord instantly refuses consent or waits too long to make a decision, the court could make a finding of unreasonableness. 41 Conversely, if the tenant fails to allow the landlord a reasonable amount of time to issue a decision, the withholding of consent can be found reasonable. 42 In Parr v. Triple L&J Corp. , the Court found that the landlord unreasonably withheld consent when it deferred making a decision on the proposed assignment, thereby delaying the sale of the tenant’s business until the prospective buyer withdrew his offer. 43 The tenant sought approval from the landlord for an assignment of the lease as part of the sale of its business. The landlord requested all personal and financial information on the proposed assignee and the assignee’s business plan, and the tenant provided prompt responses that demonstrated the assignee’s experience in restaurant management and “perfect credit score.” 44 Because the landlord unreasonably withheld consent, the landlord was held liable to the tenant under a breach of contract theory, as well as for lost profits on the sale of its business. 45

Similarly, the Court in Bert Bidwell Investors Corp. v. LaSalle and Schiffer, P.C. addressed whether the landlord unreasonably withheld consent to the tenant’s request to transfer the lease where the assignee was “ready, willing, and able to assume the lease as written, and to use the premises for the same business as that of the tenants.” 46 The landlord ultimately refused consent because it “didn’t like” the proposed assignee. 47 Based on the lease, which required the landlord’s consent to assign, the landlord argued that it “had the right to relet the premises as it saw fit and to be arbitrary in doing so.” 48 Relying on List , the Court found that the landlord acted unreasonably in refusing to accept the proposed new tenant. 49 Nevertheless, parties may create their own standards and definition of reasonableness, and if they do, courts will enforce and apply such standards. 50

As these cases illustrate, if a landlord wishes to withhold consent absent a sole and unconditional contractual right to do so, it must have fact-based reasons for doing so and cannot arbitrarily withhold or delay its consent. The landlord should communicate its decision in writing to the tenant and enumerate all fact-based reasons to preserve all arguments for reasonableness. 51 Before making the request to assign or sublet the premises, the tenant should gather information about the proposed assignee’s or subtenant’s financial status, business acumen, and proposed operations, and then submit this information to the landlord, along with an assignment or sublease document signed by the tenant and assignee or subtenant. While the landlord must still consent to the transaction, 52 such documentation places the tenant in a stronger position to rebut any superficial or arbitrary reasons the landlord may proffer for denying consent. And if litigation ensues, it will be critical for the tenant’s case to show that it supplied the landlord with as much information as possible concerning the assignee’s or subtenant’s financial status and operations, to avoid having the trier of fact determine that the landlord acted reasonably in denying consent due to a lack of information from the tenant.

Recapture, Termination, and Renewal Rights

Leases may grant the landlord the right to terminate the lease and to retake the tenant’s space if the tenant wishes to assign its lease or sublet its space, or if the tenant transfers the lease without the landlord’s consent. Replacing the tenant by recapturing the premises can benefit both the landlord and the tenant, but each party will want to weigh the pros and cons of such an agreement.

Terminating the lease allows the landlord to eliminate existing lease weaknesses and to enter into a new lease with a potentially better tenant on a clean slate. Moreover, recapturing the premises and directly leasing it to the proposed assignee can save the landlord substantial dollars in tenant improvements that can be passed on to the new tenant through reduced or free rent for a portion of the lease term. But the landlord must pay close attention to market conditions before terminating the lease. Terminating the lease in a strong market when space is at a premium and rents are high allows the landlord to enter into a new lease with a new tenant at a higher rate, but the landlord may take a loss on its investment in the premises in a down market when rates are depressed and there is an oversupply of space.

The tenant, on the other hand, risks losing its investment in its business and the leased premises. Before requesting a transfer, the tenant should closely scrutinize the lease to determine the potential outcome. Under some leases, the act of notifying the landlord of an intent to assign or sublet can trigger the recapture provision. 53 Similarly, if the lease is assigned without the landlord’s consent, it may trigger the recapture right if that right is expressly provided in the lease. 54 Landlords should closely review the recapture language before terminating the lease because restraints on alienation and lease forfeitures are disfavored. 55

When a tenant violates the transfer provisions by transferring the lease without the landlord’s consent, the landlord should send a notice of default to the tenant and demand that the default be cured by nullifying the transfer, 56 unless the lease provides that transferring the lease is an automatic termination. If the tenant is unable to nullify the transfer when it receives the notice, it could be liable for default damages incurred by the landlord. 57 If the tenant does not cure the default and the landlord will not approve (and has the right not to approve) the assignee or subtenant, the landlord may terminate the lease (or the tenant’s right to possession) if the lease so permits. 58 If the landlord fails to terminate the lease 59 or accepts rent after breach of the anti-assignment clause, 60 it may be deemed to have waived the right to terminate. Once the lease is terminated as a result of the default, the landlord must consider its duty to mitigate damages. 61

If the space is recaptured and the lease terminated, the tenant’s lease obligations will be terminated with respect to all recaptured space, including the payment of rent. 62 Moreover, the tenant will no longer have privity of contract or estate with the landlord, assignee, or subtenant because the lease will be terminated as to the tenant. 63 If the landlord recaptures the premises, the tenant is spared the rent expense while it finds a transferee. But if the landlord does not recapture, the tenant can make a transfer without fear that the landlord will then exercise its recapture rights.

Another important issue is whether an option to renew contained in a lease assigned or subleased to a third party remains exercisable following the transfer. If the assigned lease gives the original tenant a renewal option, the assignee can extend the term unless the renewal option is reserved from the assignment. 64 If a tenant/sublandlord grants its subtenant an option to renew based on the tenant’s option in the prime lease, the subtenant is dependent on the tenant/sublandlord for a lease extension because it does not have contractual privity with the landlord. 65 If the tenant/sublandlord refuses to exercise its renewal option so as to enable the subtenant to take advantage of the rights that were granted to it, the tenant may be liable to the subtenant. 66 To protect its option to renew, the subtenant should request or require a recognition agreement from the landlord when negotiating a sublease, whereby the landlord agrees to recognize the sublease if the prime lease terminates due to the tenant/sublandlord’s default. 67

The Impact of Bankruptcy Proceedings on Assignments and Subleases

Bankruptcy laws can have a significant impact on commercial leases when the tenant files for bankruptcy protection. Generally, a trustee is appointed to administer the bankruptcy estate, except in Chapter 11 cases where the debtor-in-possession is the tenant. 68 For debtors with executory contracts and/or unexpired leases, 11 USC § 365 contains a series of rules that govern those documents. Section 365 of the bankruptcy code provides the tenant/debtor with the statutory right to assume or reject executory contracts and unexpired leases to which it is a party, subject to objections by creditors and other parties-in-interest, and ultimately the court’s approval. 69 The debtor may, in turn, assign the lease if the assignee provides “adequate assurance of future performance.” 70 During the period between filing the bankruptcy petition and the date on which the lease is assumed or rejected, the tenant must continue to pay rent and perform the material terms of the lease. 71 It should be noted that written waivers of § 362’s automatic stay have been found to be unenforceable unless they are part of a previous bankruptcy proceeding. 72 Thus, landlords should not assume that a waiver in the lease is enforceable if the tenant files for bankruptcy.

From the debtor’s perspective, the right to reject the lease is “vital to the basic purpose of Chapter 11” because it can free the tenant from the obligation to pay all future rent under the lease. 73 If a lease is rejected with bankruptcy court approval, the debtor has no legal interest in the lease or the leased premises, and it must vacate the leased premises. If, however, the debtor fails to vacate the premises, the landlord can file a motion to lift the automatic stay so it can file or continue an eviction action in state court. If the debtor rejects the lease, the landlord may have a claim for “rejection damages” pursuant to 11 USC § 502(b)(6), subject to the mitigation-of-damages duty. 74

As a condition to assuming the lease, the debtor must cure all monetary defaults and provide adequate assurances of future performance under the lease. 75 A debtor who assumes the lease may be able to assign the lease free of restrictions on transfer set forth in the lease and over the landlord’s objection, 76 which may turn out to be a significant right for the debtor if it holds a below-market lease with sufficient time remaining on the lease term. However, a bankruptcy court has discretion to reject an assignment if it finds, for example, that the assignment would disrupt the tenant mix by changing the image of a shopping center or violating the use restriction in the lease. 77 A landlord may favorably view the debtor’s assumption because it assures continuation of the lease and the cure of existing defaults. But if the tenant is holding a below-market lease, the landlord may favor rejection to enable it to negotiate a new lease. A landlord may object to the debtor’s attempted lease assumption if the landlord disagrees with the debtor’s plan to cure the default or believes the debtor has not provided adequate assurance that the default will be cured or the debtor will perform in the future.

Section 365(b)(3)(C) of the bankruptcy code provides specific protections for “a lease of real property in a shopping center” by providing that no assignment can occur without assurances that use clauses and other provisions vital to the operation of the shopping center will continue to be performed, “including (but not limited to) provisions such as a radius, location, use, or exclusivity provision, and will not breach any such provision contained in any other lease, financing agreement, or master agreement relating to such shopping center.” The purpose of § 365(b)(3)(C) “is to preserve the landlord’s bargained-for protections with respect to premises use and other matters that are spelled out in the lease with the debtor-tenant.” 78 Moreover, § 365(b)(3)(D) requires adequate assurance “that assumption or assignment of such lease will not disrupt any tenant mix or balance in such shopping center.” Despite the bankruptcy code’s language protecting shopping centers, some bankruptcy courts have found lease provisions that limit the use of the shopping center premises to be per se restraints on alienation. 79 To avoid an adverse ruling if a shopping center tenant files for bankruptcy, a landlord should arm itself with as much evidence and expert testimony as possible to show a disruption in tenant mix or a real potential for violating other tenants’ rights if an assignment is allowed. 80

While a tenant’s bankruptcy filing places the lease in limbo, a landlord can be proactive by approaching the tenant to determine whether it intends to reject or assume the lease. Landlords and tenants should not treat the existing lease as a static document that presents the tenant with a “take it or leave it” proposition for assumption. If the tenant voices concerns about the current lease, the landlord can renegotiate the lease to entice the tenant to assume a modified lease (subject to court approval) that keeps the tenant in the premises and paying rent.

Negotiating Lease Transfer Provisions

Negotiating lease transfer provisions is an important process for both the landlord and the tenant because, at some time in the future, the landlord or the tenant may be forced to accept a previously unknown or undesirable counterparty to the lease. It is critical that attorneys impress upon their respective clients the short-term and long-term ramifications that could result from their negotiations of the lease transfer provisions. Landlords and tenants should consider the following issues when negotiating assignment and subletting provisions.

The Landlord’s Perspective

The landlord’s primary objective in negotiating assignment and subleasing provisions is control , including control over the mix of tenants and control over the use of the leased premises. Thus, the landlord will use the transfer provisions to protect its interests in the premises.
A landlord’s foremost concern is almost always the tenant’s ability to pay rent, in full, on a timely basis. A landlord should negotiate requirements that a prospective assignee or subtenant must meet, such as minimum net worth and minimum gross sales.
The landlord can protect itself by including a right to recapture the premises if a tenant seeks to assign its lease or to sublet its premises. However, landlords should carefully consider whether to include language that terminates the lease automatically upon receipt of an assignment request because it could constitute a restraint on alienation, which is disfavored, and the landlord may prefer the leasehold to continue. 81
The landlord should keep the original tenant on the hook. Landlords should oppose any transfer provision that relieves the original tenant of its obligations under the lease upon an assignment. Having a tenant with a vested interest in the assignee’s ability to perform the lease is helpful to ensure that a lease is transferred to a worthy transferee. Additionally, in the event the assignee does default, if the original tenant’s liability has been preserved, the landlord’s chances of recovery are improved.
The landlord should limit the use rights of a subsequent assignee or subtenant. A landlord should seek to protect its right to control the mix of tenants, particularly in retail settings, so as not to violate exclusive use provisions. 82 Moreover, exclusives and use restrictions held by other tenants at a shopping center must be considered in conjunction with a potential change in use that may occur upon assignment or subletting.
The landlord should seek to share in excess rent. 83 For example, where a tenant assigns its lease or subleases its premises, it may be paid more than the amount the tenant is obligated to pay the landlord under the lease. If the assignment or sublease had not been entered into, those same financial accommodations would theoretically have been available to the landlord if it had leased directly to the assignee or subtenant. Accordingly, a landlord should seek the right to share in this excess financial consideration along with the tenant, or if it has the leverage, to obtain 100% of such excess.

The Tenant’s Perspective

The tenant’s goal is maintaining flexibility. The tenant’s ability to maintain flexibility through the lease largely depends on its leverage to negotiate favorable lease terms. A new business seeking space in a desirable retail shopping center may have little or no leverage to negotiate the transfer provisions, but a large corporation leasing significant space may have considerable negotiating strength. Thus, it is imperative that the tenant’s leasing broker and attorney understand the market forces at play in any lease negotiation.
The tenant should seek flexibility to share the leased premises or certain portions of it (i.e., floor space, utilities, and parking) with its related entities and affiliates with which it has a business relationship, without having to seek the landlord’s consent in each instance. This issue is particularly important for large companies with divisions that operate under different business names.
The tenant should also seek flexibility to restructure its organization without the landlord and the lease acting as an impediment to such alteration, by negotiating into the lease specific language permitting such changes. The tenant’s ability to reorganize its business, either through a merger, consolidation, or sale, could be delayed or impeded by the landlord under the transfer provisions if these provisions are not properly negotiated at the letter of intent stage or before the lease is executed.
The tenant should maintain an exit strategy if the premises no longer satisfy its business needs because it has outgrown the space or needs less space. This is particularly important in the era of COVID-19. For example, start-up companies can quickly outgrow their leased premises, but if the landlord does not have more space available, the company must seek out new or additional space, frequently at a higher rate. Conversely, a change in economic forces can cause the tenant’s business to quickly retract. Thus, prospective tenants should be mindful to negotiate termination and rights of first refusal options for newly available space in the same building, with the end goal of ensuring that the size of their leased space does not impair their business objectives. 84
The tenant should insist that the landlord’s right to approve a lease transfer not be unreasonably withheld, if the landlord insists on reserving such right. The lease should detail the specific standards the tenant must meet to obtain approval, such as the transferee’s minimum net worth and minimum business experience.
Counsel for the tenant should attempt to include a provision for automatically releasing the tenant and any guarantor from further liability at the time of the lease transfer or after the transfer occurs if the assignee or sublessee can meet or exceed certain financial marks, such as net worth, sales, or revenue.
The tenant should negotiate (1) the right to revoke a transfer request during a defined period after the landlord issues a notice to terminate and recapture the premises, and (2) a reasonable period to vacate the premises before the tenant will be subject to eviction proceedings if the tenant does not revoke the transfer request. Where the landlord insists on a termination and recapture provision, this rescission right provides a tenant the flexibility to stop the recapture process according to the tenant’s particular circumstances and commercial exigencies.

The relationships established between the parties to a lease, sublease, or assignment can be complicated. While the ability to transfer the lease can be a valuable tool for the tenant, the landlord’s interest in protecting its investment by choosing its occupants is equally compelling. However, a balance can be struck that provides the tenant the flexibility it needs while preserving the landlord’s control and minimizing its risk. During lease negotiations, both parties should recognize that changing circumstances during the lease term could trigger the need to assign the lease or sublet the premises. If thoughtful attention is given to negotiating the transfer provisions, the parties can assure themselves that, if the need arises to transfer the lease, their respective interests will be reasonably protected.

Thank you for your interest in Colorado Lawyer!

You have reached your maximum number of free articles.

For unlimited access to Colorado Lawyer articles, log in to your CBA account or join the Colorado Bar Association. For technical support, email [email protected] .

Adam F. Aldrich is the founder of Aldrich Legal, LLC, a Denver-based law firm focused on real estate and business transactions and litigation—(303) 325-5683. Coordinating Editor: Christopher D. Bryan .

Explore This Issue

Resources for Pro Se Litigation in the US District Court for the District of Colorado

Access to justice by kristen l. mix.

The Colorado Appellate Courts’ Commitment to Diversity and Inclusion

Judges’ corner by gilbert m. román and lino lipinsky de orlov.

The Perpetual Discussion

The sidebar by mark levy, related topics.

1 . Schneiker v. Gordon , 732 P.2d 603, 606 (Colo. 1987) (recognizing the “dual nature of a lease” as both a contract and a conveyance of an interest in land).

2 . Id. at 606–07.

3 . Shaffer v. George , 171 P. 881, 882 (Colo. 1917).

4 . Gordon Inv. Co. v. Jones , 227 P.2d 336, 340 (Colo. 1951).

5 . Shaffer , 171 P. at 882.

6 . Roget v. Grand Pontiac, Inc. , 5 P.3d 341, 345 (Colo.App. 1999) (“after the assignment, the assignee becomes primarily liable for the obligations under the contract, while the assignor remains secondarily liable”).

7 . Gordon Inv. Co. , 227 P.2d at 340.

8 . J.E. Martin, Inc. v. Interstate 8th St. , 585 P.2d 299, 301 (Colo.App. 1978) (“the delegation of duties under a lease and their assumption by a third person do not absolve the original lessee, absent the lessor’s knowledge and consent, simply by virtue of the conduct of the lessee and third party”). See also 1 Friedman and Randolph Jr., Friedman on Leases § 7:7.2 (Practising Law Institute 5th ed. 2013).

9 . V.O.B. Co. v. Hang It Up, Inc. , 691 P.2d 1157, 1159 (Colo.App. 1984).

10 . Friedman and Randolph Jr. , supra note 8 at § 7:4.2.

11 . Barbuti, “Assignments Pro Tanto And Why To Avoid Them,” 22 The Practical Real Estate Lawyer 24, 24–25 (Sept. 2006).

12 . Id. at 24.

13 . Id. at 23 (reprinted in part).

14 . Parrish Chiropractic Ctrs., P.C. v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. , 874 P.2d 1049, 1052 (Colo. 1994) (“Contract rights generally are assignable, except where assignment is prohibited by contract or by operation of law or where the contract involves a matter of personal trust or confidence”).

15 . Union Oil Co. of Cal. v. Lindauer , 280 P.2d 444, 447 (Colo. 1955). See also Malouff v. Midland Fed. Sav. and Loan Ass’n , 509 P.2d 1240, 1243 (Colo. 1973) (recognizing that “[t]he common law doctrine of restraints on alienation is a part of the law in Colorado”).

16 . Friedman and Randolph Jr., supra note 8 at § 7:3.3. See also Malouff , 509 P.2d at 1243 (holding “that the question of the invalidity of a restraint depends upon its reasonableness in view of the justifiable interests of the parties”).

17 . Beck v. Giordano , 356 P.2d 264, 265 (Colo. 1960).

18 . Lindauer , 280 P.2d at 447.

19 . Fink v. Montgomery Elevator Co. of Colo. , 421 P.2d 735, 738 (Colo. 1966).

20 . Routt Cty. Mining Co. v Stutheit , 72 P.2d 692, 693 (Colo. 1937).

21 . Parr v. Triple L & J Corp. , 107 P.3d 1104 (Colo.App. 2004).

22 . Cafeteria Operators L.P. v. AMCAP/Denver Ltd. P’ship , 972 P.2d 276, 278 (Colo.App. 1998).

23 . Id. See also Basnett v. Vista Vill. Mobile Home Park , 699 P.2d 1343, 1346 (Colo.App. 1984) (holding that a landlord may not unreasonably refuse consent under a silent consent clause because that result “incorporates the principles of fair-dealing and reasonableness and also preserves freedom of contract”), rev’d on other grounds , 731 P.2d 700 (Colo. 1987).

24 . List v. Dahnke , 638 P.2d 824, 825 (Colo.App. 1981).

25 . Cafeteria Operators L.P. , 972 P.2d at 279.

26 . List , 638 P.2d at 825.

28 . Ring v. Mpath Interactive, Inc. , 302 F.Supp.2d 301, 305 (S.D.N.Y. 2004); Toys “R” Us, Inc., No. 88 C 10349, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14878 at *111 (N.D.Ill. Sept. 29, 1995); Restatement (Second) of Prop.—Landlord and Tenant § 15.2 cmt. g (American Law Inst. 1976).

29 . E.g., Campbell v. Westdahl , 715 P.2d 288, 293 (Ariz.Ct.App. 1985).

30 . Friedman and Randolph Jr., supra note 8 at § 7:3.4 (citing cases).

31 . Cent. Bus. Coll. v. Rutherford , 107 P. 279, 280 (Colo. 1910); List , 638 P.2d at 825 (dictum).

32 . Kendall v. Ernest Pestana, Inc. , 709 P.2d 837, 845 (Cal. 1985).

33 . Id. at 845. See also Econ. Rentals, Inc. v. Garcia , 819 P.2d 1306, 1317 (N.M. 1991).

34 . Cafeteria Operators L.P. , 972 P.2d at 277.

36 . Id. at 279.

38 . List , 638 P.2d at 825.

39 . Toys “R” Us, Inc. , U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14878 at *124 (landlord’s refusal before it has relevant information that should be obtained in making the consent decision may be unreasonable).

40 . Shaffer, The Sublease and Assignment Deskbook at 80–81 (American Bar Ass’n 2d ed. 2016).

41 . Compare Parr , 107 P.3d at 1107 (affirming trial court’s ruling that the landlord unreasonably withheld consent where the landlord delayed consent, which caused the proposed assignees to withdraw their offer to purchase the business) with Toys “R” Us, Inc. , 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14878 at *124 (landlord’s refusal before it has relevant information that should be obtained in making the consent decision may be unreasonable).

42 . Fahrenwald v. LaBonte , 653 P.2d 806, 811 (Idaho Ct.App. 1982).

43 . Parr , 107 P.3d at 1106.

45 . Id. at 1107.

46 . Bert Bidwell Inv. Corp. v. LaSalle and Schiffer , P.C., 797 P.2d 811 (Colo.App. 1990).

47 . Id. at 811.

48 . Id. at 812.

50 . Toys “R” Us, Inc. , 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14878 at *115 (citations omitted) (“where a lease contains provisions giving further meaning to a reasonableness clause, the standard of reasonableness varies”); Shaffer, supra note 40 at 80–81.

51 . Golden Eye, LTC v. Fame Co. , No. 0603166/2007, 2008 N.Y. Misc 8571 at *16 (N.Y. Gen Term Jan. 16, 2008) (“the Court may not determine reasonableness if withholding consent is based on grounds that were not included in the letter refusing consent”).

52 . Shaffer, supra note 40 at 74–75.

53 . Carma Developers (Cal.), Inc. v. Marathon Dev. Cal., Inc. , 826 P.2d 710 (Cal. 1992).

54 . Lindauer , 280 P.2d at 447.

55 . Murphy v. Traynor , 135 P.2d 230, 231 (Colo. 1943).

56 . Shoemaker v. Shaug , 490 P.2d 439, 441 (Wash.Ct.App. 1971) (finding that the tenant was not in default of the anti-assignment provision because it could reassign the lease back to itself).

57 . La Casa Nino, Inc. v. Plaza Esteban , 762 P.2d 669, 672 (Colo. 1988) (citing Schneiker v. Gordon , 732 P.2d 603 (Colo. 1987)).

58 . Gordon Inv. Co. , 227 P.2d at 260–61 (tenant’s subletting was held a breach that permitted landlord to terminate the lease).

59 . Shakey’s Inc. v. Caple , 855 F.Supp. 1035, 1043–44 (E.D.Ark. 1994) (holding that the landlord was estopped from terminating a lease on account of an unapproved sublease because the landlord did not act promptly).

60 . Merkowitz v. Mahoney , 121 Colo. 38, 42 (Colo. 1949) (“It is the general rule that any act done by a landlord, with knowledge of an existing right of forfeiture, which recognizes the existence of the lease is a waiver of the right to enforce the forfeiture”); Werner v. Baker , 693 P.2d 385, 387 (Colo.App. 1984) (“the lessor’s acceptance of rent accruing after the breach of an anti-assignment clause, with knowledge of the breach, constitutes a waiver of the right to terminate the lease for breach of that clause”). Cf. Nouri v. Wester & Co. , 833 P.2d 848, 851 (Colo.App. 1992) (holding that waiver of conditions against assignment by accepting rent did not carry over to other provisions in the lease).

61 . La Casa Nino, Inc. , 762 P.2d at 672.

62 . Carma Developers (Cal.), Inc. , 826 P.2d 710.

63 . Schneiker , 732 P.2d at 611.

64 . Friedman and Randolph Jr., supra note 8 at §§ 7:5.1 and 7:7.1.

65 . Tiger Crane Martial Arts Inc. v. Franchise Stores Realty Corp. , 235 A.D.2d 994, 995 (N.Y.App.Div. 1997) (“It is well settled that where, as here, a sublease is expressly made subject to the terms of a master lease, the subtenant has no legal right to compel the tenant to exercise an option for renewal of the entire demised premises in order to permit the subtenant to exercise an option for renewal of its subleased premises, absent proof of an agreement on the part of the tenant to exercise its option to renew for the benefit of the subtenant or evidence of special circumstances entitling the subtenant to such relief”).

66 . Burgess Pic-Pac, Inc. v. Fleming Cos. , 190 W. Va. 169, 175 (W.Va. 1993) (discussing liability of sublandlord to subtenant for failure to exercise renewal option after request from subtenant).

67 . Senn, Commercial Real Estate Leases: Preparation, Negotiation, and Forms , § 13.14 (Wolters Kluwer 6th ed. 2019).

68 . 11 USC § 1107.

69 . 11 USC § 365(a).

70 . 11 USC § 365(f)(2)(B).

71 . 11 USC § 365(d)(3).

72 . In re DB Capital Holdings, LLC , 454 B.R. 804, 816 (Bankr. D.Colo. 2011) (“waivers, unless they were part of a previous bankruptcy proceeding . . . should not be enforced”).

73 . NLRB v. Bildisco & Bildisco , 465 U.S. 513, 528 (1984); 11 USC § 502(b)(6).

74 . In re Shane Co. , 464 B.R. 32, 38–41 (Bankr. D.Colo. 2012) (discussing damages claim under 11 USC § 502(b)(6)).

75 . 11 USC § 365(b)(1).

76 . 11 USC § 365(f); In re Bricker Systems, Inc. , 44 B.R. 952 (Bankr. E.D. Wis. 1984) (recognizing that § 365(f) invalidates restrictions on assignment of contracts or leases by a debtor or trustee and allows assignment of assumed contracts at a later date).

77 . In re Federated Dep’t Stores, Inc. , 135 B.R. 941 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 1991); In re Martin Paint Stores , 199 B.R. 258 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1996), aff’d , S. Blvd., Inc. v. Martin Paint Stores , 207 B.R. 57 (S.D.N.Y. 1997).

78 . In re Trak Auto Corp. , 367 F.3d 237, 244 (4th Cir. 2004) (internal citation omitted).

79 . In re Bradlee Stores, Inc. , No. 00-16033, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14755 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 20, 2001) (holding that restriction on assignment violated the anti-assignment provisions of § 365(f)); In re Rickel Home Ctrs., Inc. , 240 B.R. 826, 832 (D.Del. 1998) (striking restrictive use provision).

80 . In re Trak Auto Group , 367 F.3d at 242 (enforcing use provision concerning the sale of automobile parts and accessories in shopping center lease); In re J. Peterman Co. , 232 B.R. 366 (Bankr. E.D.Ky. 1999) (rejecting assignment of shopping center lease where proposed assignment would violate radius restriction in lease and assignee did not sell similar merchandise as the original tenant). But see In re Toys “R” Us, Inc. , 587 B.R. 304, 307 (Bankr. E.D.Va. 2018) (overruling landlord’s objection to the debtor’s assignment on the grounds that it would violate the exclusivity provision of another lease in the shopping center and would disrupt the shopping center’s tenant mix and balance).

81 . Friedman and Randolph Jr., supra note 8 at § 7:1.1.

82 . In re Ames Dept. Stores, Inc. , 127 B.R. 744, 752–54 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1991) (discussing rights of landlord to protect the tenant mix at the shopping center in the context of the lease and a subsequent bankruptcy filing of the tenant).

83 . Carma Developers (Cal.), Inc. , 826 P.2d 710 (upholding the landlord’s contractual right to capture excess rent).

84 . For an interesting discussion on the assignability of rights of first refusal, see Mitchell, “Can a Right of First Refusal Be Assigned?” 985 U. Chi. L. Rev. (2001).

As these cases illustrate, if a landlord wishes to withhold consent absent a sole and unconditional contractual right to do so, it must have fact-based reasons for doing so and cannot arbitrarily withhold or delay consent.

(212) 619-1500

[email protected]

Wright Law Firm

NYC Commercial Real Estate Law; ADA Defense

Can a Landlord Refuse Consent to Lease Assignment?

Many distressed business owners come to me and ask Can a Landlord Refuse Consent to Lease Assignment? A business owner’s lease can be one of its most valuable assets. When negotiating a new lease, many business owners do not consider how this will affect the eventual sale of their businesses. A one-sided lease with assignment provisions requiring the landlord’s consent in his absolute discretion may scare away prospective buyers.

Tenant’s opinions as to whether or nor not the assignee is a suitable tenant can be very different from Landlord’s. The tenant may see the proposed assignee has having a solid business plan but a landlord, possibly not being familiar with the tenant’s industry, may not agree and view the assignee as a future eviction. The tenant has the burden of proving the landlord acted unreasonably and the prerequisites for the landlord even considering the request are that the tenant cannot be in default and must comply with often burdensome requests from the landlord for documentation pertaining to the proposed assignee.

To prove a landlord has been unreasonable, the tenant must show one of two grounds for refusing consent; the landlord was arbitrary or capricious or based his refusal on personal taste, prejudice or convenience. Some standard provisions in lease assignment clauses that relieve the Landlord of even having to consider consent are whether the assignment would be in violation of another tenant’s lease in the building (many times landlords give exclusive rights to tenants that they will rent to competitors) or that the proposed assignee’s business will impose a burden on the building’s resources such as elevators, parking, etc. Other prerequisites to the landlord’s requirement to consider the assignment are that the assignee’s business be in compliance with the use clause in the original lease or that the proposed assignee has not been negotiating with the landlord for the other premises in the building.

The tenant should always insist on language in the lease’s assignment clause requiring that the landlord not unreasonably withhold, delay or condition consent to an assignment. In that case, the landlord will have an obligation to review the information given by the tenant in a timely manner. If he fails to do so, he can be found liable for unreasonably withholding consent.

In most states, landlords are not required to be reasonable when it comes to giving consent to their tenants for the assignment of a leased space. However, this majority view of landlords having “sole discretion” in granting consents is gradually changing in favor of the implied covenant of “good faith” and fair dealing. In jurisdictions where a party is required to act in “good faith,” denial of consent will not be permitted if it leads to the defeat of the tenant’s reasonably expected benefit of the bargain. This is the case even when a landlord has reserved the right to deny its consent for any reason. There is no hard and fast rule pertaining to this. A determination by a Judge or an arbitrator as to whether a landlord has breached his duty to be reasonable will require a hearing on the particular facts of the proposed assignment. Generally landlord’s attorneys insert some ambiguous language regarding the acceptability of an assignee. This makes proving that the landlord acted unreasonably a lengthy and costly process. Most landlords insist in the lease that any potential relief be limited to specific performance, i.e. if they lose, they must accept the proposed assignee but the tenant will not be awarded any monetary damages. Even if the tenant were to win, this is often a pyrrhic victory, the potential assignee has probably moved on to other opportunities.

Legal Services

Commercial, Regulatory & Data
Dispute Resolution
Employment and Pensions
Finance and Restructuring
Real Estate
Tax & Private Capital
India Group

Legal Operations

Contracts Management
Cyber Incident Services
Legal Analytics
Legal Operations & Consulting
Litigation and Investigations

Business Services

Claims Management & Adjusting
Corporate Governance & Compliance
DWF Chambers
Regulatory Consulting
Class Actions
Economic Crime & Fraud Hub
Sustainable Business & ESG
Data Protection and Cyber Security
News and Insights
Reports and Publications
News and Press
DWF onDemand
Brave New Law
DWF Link: Early Careers Network
Consumer Duty Hub

Unreasonably withholding consent to assign a lease

How unreasonable does a landlord have to be?

Leases will usually require a landlord’s consent before a tenant can assign, sublet, or otherwise part with possession of premises. This is understandable as a landlord needs the ability to protect their interest in their premises. In the current market however, a tenant’s need for premises can change quickly and often, particularly in retail units where customer preferences and footfall are vital.

Section 19(1) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1927 says that for all leases where there is a requirement on a tenant to obtain a landlord’s consent before assigning, underletting or in any way changing possession of all or part of the premises, consent is not to be unreasonably withheld. As a result, a landlord must always act reasonably – although reasonable doesn’t necessarily mean correctly or justifiably – just what a reasonable person would do in those circumstances. The decision must be based on the relationship of the landlord and tenant and a landlord cannot look to better their position by refusing consent.

When can a landlord refuse consent?

It may be reasonable to withhold consent if the assignee does not appear able to make the rental commitments required under the lease. A profit level of ‘three times the annual rent’ is often used as a benchmark to show that a tenant can make the rental payments. That is not a hard and fast rule though and a landlord refusing consent on the basis that a tenant’s profit levels do not meet that criteria will not necessarily be reasonable. It would be reasonable to refuse consent where the proposed assignee would use the premises for a use which would be a breach of the user covenant. Similarly, the landlord can refuse consent if it wants to maintain a good tenant mix, for example in a shopping centre. It is also reasonable for a landlord to refuse to assign a lease to an assignee who would be in direct competition with their business.

However, it is unreasonable for a landlord to refuse consent where they look to obtain a variation to the lease to improve their position as a condition of granting consent or on any grounds which are discriminatory to the proposed assignee or sub-tenant. Also, a landlord cannot reasonably withhold consent to an underletting on the basis that to do so may set a low rent comparable for forthcoming rent reviews.

Less clear cut examples are where a landlord refuses consent to sub-let due to concerns about the long term viability of the sub-tenant. The landlord’s direct covenant with the tenant remains and so the landlord’s ability to collect rent should not be affected. However, it is possible that the market will perceive the sub-letting as a reduction in the value of the property and that could affect the landlord’s reversionary interest. Similarly if the landlord refuses consent to assign or sub-let on the basis of existing breaches of covenant by the tenant, it will depend on the severity of the breaches and the likelihood of the assignee or sub-tenant to remedy them. It would be unreasonable for a landlord to refuse consent to assign on the basis of minor disrepair works, but it may be reasonable to refuse consent to assign where there are substantial dilapidations and the assignee does not appear to have the means to remedy the defects. In cases like this whether or not refusal is unreasonable will depend on all the facts in that particular case.

Timing of applications

The timing of a landlord’s response is also covered by statute. The Landlord and Tenant Act 1988 Section 1(3) states that a landlord owes a duty to a tenant to respond to any application for consent within a reasonable time. What constitutes a reasonable time will depend on each set of circumstances and it would be impossible to set down hard and fast rules. However, case law does give us some indications as to what is and isn’t reasonable. The time period will run from when a landlord receives a complete formal application from the tenant and ends when the landlord’s decision is notified to the tenant. The time period between those two will need to be as short as is sensibly possible It will be weeks and not months, but holiday periods will be taken into account as will the complexities of the deal.

Ultimately it is for the tenant to demonstrate that the landlord is acting unreasonably rather than the landlord to prove its behaviour is reasonable. As such, a tenant making a formal application needs to provide as much information as possible at the time of making the application and provide all relevant details. It will be far easier for a tenant to prove that the landlord is unreasonably withholding consent where the application included complete and comprehensive supporting information, rather than where information has been provided piecemeal and reactively.

Landlords receiving applications need to act promptly as the time limits explained above will apply once the application is made. If you are unsure whether you need to treat the communication from a tenant as a formal application for consent to assign, then ask the question. Correspondence from a tenant saying that you are out of time to withhold consent will put a landlord on the back foot – even if consent would have been granted in any event.

When considering an application to assign, sublet or part with possession, or if you are a landlord you receive one, it is worth taking advice to ensure you are aware of your rights and the likely consequences of consent being refused.

If you require any further information please contact a member of our expert Real Estate Litigation team.

A costly reminder of the pitfalls associated with letters of intent

How costly can it be to proceed with a project based on a letter of intent? Our team explores the pitfalls and some practical tips to side step a potential dispute.

Cyber Liability Insurance ExecuSummit: Key learnings

In the ever-evolving landscape of cybersecurity, staying ahead of the latest trends and insights is key for individuals and businesses alike.

Assignment and Consent Standards in Commercial Leases

Mar 6, 2020

Assignment provisions in commercial leases are heavily negotiated and very important to both landlords and tenants. This article presents a brief overview of the assignment provision in commercial leases, both office and retail.

Assignment provisions in commercial leases are heavily negotiated and very important to both landlords and tenants. When a tenant’s interest in a lease is assigned, the tenant is transferring its entire leasehold interest and 100% of the leased premises to a third party for the entire remaining term of the lease. For the tenant, the assignment provision represents a potential exit strategy, dependent of course on the local market, and increased flexibility for future needs. For the landlord, the assignment offers greater security for its revenue stream and hopefully the avoidance of a tenant bankruptcy or default while keeping its building occupied. The tenant’s desire for flexibility and the landlord’s need for control is where the negotiations are focused. This article presents a brief overview of the assignment provision in commercial leases, both office and retail, with particular attention on the laws of Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia. The landlord’s standard for providing consent to a request to an assignment will be reviewed, and we will conclude by offering suggested language.

What If The Lease Does Not Contain An Assignment Provision?

The law traditionally favors the free alienation of property. Therefore, under the laws of almost every state, if the lease is silent on whether the landlord’s consent to an assignment is required, then the commercial tenant has the right to assign its interest. This is true in Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia. Given this baseline, almost every lease form will have a detailed provision setting forth the assignment process. Note also, however, that in most states it is also enforceable for a commercial lease to have an outright prohibition against assignments. Such a provision would likely be a non-starting deal point for most sophisticated tenants.

What Does Reasonable Mean?

If a lease simply provides that the tenant requires landlord’s consent to an assignment, but does not include the standard for giving or withholding that consent, then in many states the implied standard is that the landlord’s consent may not be unreasonably withheld. Historically this was the minority view, with the historical rule allowing the landlord to withhold consent for any reason. The implied duty of reasonableness is now more the norm as more states adopt this position when presented with the issue. There is express case law establishing this rule in Maryland, and most courts in Virginia and Washington, DC will imply such a covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Most states, though, do allow a landlord the sole right to grant or withhold its consent if the lease clearly expressly provides, and in Maryland the lease must specifically state that the landlord’s consent may be granted or withheld in the sole and absolute subjective discretion of the landlord. Again though, a sophisticated tenant with any leverage should never agree to such a provision.

Most negotiated leases will instead contain a provision requiring that landlord’s consent to an assignment is required, but such consent will not be unreasonably withheld. The tenant will likely also try to include landlord’s obligation to not unreasonably delay or condition its consent. A short clause without further defining what constitutes “reasonableness” generally favors the tenant, and landlords typically prefer including specific standards as to the criteria it can consider when reasonably deciding whether or not to consent to an assignment. Without such specificity, defining “reasonable” is difficult as the landlord and tenant clearly will have differing viewpoints and it may be left as a factual question to be decided in litigation. The typical definition (set forth in the Restatement (Second) of Property) would be that of a reasonably prudent person in the landlord’s position exercising reasonable commercial responsibility.

Absent a detailed provision listing the criteria a landlord can consider when reasonably reviewing a request to assign, a landlord is typically found to be considered reasonable if it considers certain general broad factors. First, the landlord reviews the assignee’s proposed use. In a retail setting, the landlord will be concerned whether the proposed use fits with the existing center and/or violates any existing exclusives or insurance requirements. In an office setting, the landlord might review the expected traffic and wear and tear on the building. Second, the landlord will consider the creditworthiness of the assignee. The landlord (and the assignor) will want to be confident that the assignee is capable of performing tenant’s obligations under the lease and a large creditworthy tenant increases the value of the asset. The assignor might argue that a strict financial test (such as a minimum net worth, for example) is unfair since the assignor is likely not being released upon the assignment and the landlord can still pursue the assignor in the event of a default. Third, the landlord will review the experience and history of the assignor. As mentioned above, landlords instead prefer a detailed list setting forth the many factors that they can include as part of reasonably reviewing a request for a lease assignment.

Without further establishing the criteria, the landlord puts itself at risk of a challenge by the tenant that a denial of a consent is unreasonable.

In defining “reasonable,” courts typically do not allow a landlord to deny or condition consent to an assignment based purely on economic reasons where the landlord results in substantially increasing what it was entitled to under the lease. In Washington, DC, there is well established case law holding that it is unreasonable for a landlord to withhold consent solely to extract an economic concession or improve its economic position. For example, a court would not consider it reasonable for a landlord to condition its consent on the assignee paying a greatly increased rent. Instead, as discussed below, landlords should look to protect their interests in a market of increasing rents by providing for either the sharing of excess rentals or a right to recapture.

What Are Typical Provisions In an Assignment Clause?

As discussed above, tenants generally prefer a short assignment provision simply requiring the landlord to not unreasonably withhold, condition or delay its consent to an assignment. But most leases are drafted by landlords, and over the years the assignment provisions have evolved to contain many typical provisions in addition to further defining “reasonableness,” including the following below.

Sharing of Excess Rents. Since many states do not permit a landlord to condition its consent on improving its economic position (e. g. , by increasing the rent), most leases instead contain a provision where the landlord is entitled to all or a portion of the profits. The profits may mean increased rent, or it may even be construed more broadly to consider the value of the location in a sale of the tenant’s business. The landlord’s argument is that it doesn’t want the tenants competing in the real estate market. The tenant should push back here, and certainly try to lower the percentage shared, carve out any consideration received in the sale of tenant’s business, and only share profits after all of the tenant’s reasonable costs incurred in connection with the assignment were first deducted.
Corporate Transfers. Since a purchase of the entity constituting tenant is likely not deemed an assignment under the law, most leases make clear that any such corporate sale, including the sale of either a controlling interest in the stock or substantially all of the assets of the tenant, is deemed an assignment for purposes of the lease. The tenant should carve out permitted transfers for typical mergers and acquisitions under certain conditions, and also carve out routine transfers of stock (or other ownership interests) between existing partners or for estate planning purposes. The landlord will likely accept a permitted transfer concept provided they receive adequate notice and the successor entity succeeds to all of the assets of the original tenant with an acceptable net worth.
Assignment Review Fee. Most landlords include in their form lease the requirement that the tenant reimburse them for legal and administrative expenses incurred in reviewing the request for consent and preparing the assignment. The tenant clearly wants to keep these fees reasonable and in keeping with the local market.
Recapture Rights. Landlords like to include the express right to recapture the premises in the event the tenant comes to it to request a consent for an assignment. A recapture clause allows the landlord to terminate the lease if market rents have increased or if it needs the space for another use. Sophisticated tenants should push back here as much as leverage allows, try to limit the time periods, and if nothing else try for the right to nullify the recapture by rescinding its request for the consent.
Tenant’s Remedy. To protect themselves from claims for damages from the tenant if the landlord withholds its consent to a requested assignment, landlords often include a provision where the tenant waives its rights to monetary damages in such a situation and can only seek injunctive relief. The tenant should try to delete this provision, or at least, if leverage permits, provide for the right to seek damages if the landlord is subsequently found to have acted in bad faith.

Assignment provisions are heavily negotiated and both the commercial landlord and tenant need to be advised to the applicable local law and know the market for a comparable transaction. ( Note: The author represents office and retail landlords and tenants throughout Virginia, Maryland and the District of Columbia.) Sample reasonableness provisions for both office and retail uses are copied below for reference.

Retail Lease

Landlord and Tenant agree, by way of example and without limitation, that it shall be reasonable for Landlord to withhold its consent if any of the following situations exist or may exist: (i) In Landlord’s reasonable business judgment, the proposed assignee lacks sufficient business experience to operate a business of the type permitted under this Lease and to a quality required under this Lease; (ii) The present net worth of the proposed assignee is lower than that of Tenant’s as of either the date of the proposed assignment or the date of this Lease; (iii) The proposed assignment would require alterations to the Premises affecting the Building’s systems or structure; (iv) The proposed assignment would require modification to the terms of this Lease, or would breach any covenant of Landlord in any other lease, insurance policy, financing agreement or other agreement relating to the Shopping Center, including, without limitation, covenants respecting radius, location, use and/or exclusivity; (v) The proposed assignment would conflict with the primary use of any existing tenant in the Shopping Center or any recorded instrument to which the Shopping Center is bound; and/or (vi) The proposed assignment or subletting would result in a reduction in the Rent collected by Landlord during any portion of the term of this Lease.

Office Lease

Without limitation as to other reasonable grounds for withholding consent, the parties hereby agree that it shall be reasonable under this Lease and under any applicable law for Landlord to withhold consent to any proposed Transfer where one or more of the following apply: (i) The Transferee is of a character or reputation or engaged in a business which is not consistent with the quality of the Building; (ii) The Transferee intends to use the Premises for purposes which are not permitted under this Lease; (iii) The Transferee is a governmental agency; (iv) The Transfer occurs prior to the first anniversary of the Lease Commencement Date; (v) The Transferee has a net worth of less than $10,000,000.00; (vi) The proposed Transfer would cause a violation or trigger a termination right of another lease for space in the Building; or (vii) Either the proposed Transferee, or any person or entity which directly or indirectly, controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with, the proposed Transferee, (i) occupies space in the Building at the time of the request for consent, or (ii) is negotiating with Landlord to lease space in the Building at such time, or (iii) has negotiated with Landlord during the six (6)-month period immediately preceding the Transfer Notice.

Reprinted with permission from the March edition of the Commercial Leasing Law & Strategy© 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All rights reserved. Further duplication without permission is prohibited, contact 877-257-3382 or [email protected] .

John G. Kelly

Related Practices Areas

Commercial Leasing
Real Estate

Related Industries

Bank & Lender Services
Real Estate Development & Investment
Small, Emerging & Growing Businesses

assignments basic law

Assignments: The Basic Law

The assignment of a right or obligation is a common contractual event under the law and the right to assign (or prohibition against assignments) is found in the majority of agreements, leases and business structural documents created in the United States.

As with many terms commonly used, people are familiar with the term but often are not aware or fully aware of what the terms entail. The concept of assignment of rights and obligations is one of those simple concepts with wide ranging ramifications in the contractual and business context and the law imposes severe restrictions on the validity and effect of assignment in many instances. Clear contractual provisions concerning assignments and rights should be in every document and structure created and this article will outline why such drafting is essential for the creation of appropriate and effective contracts and structures.

The reader should first read the article on Limited Liability Entities in the United States and Contracts since the information in those articles will be assumed in this article.

Basic Definitions and Concepts:

An assignment is the transfer of rights held by one party called the “assignor” to another party called the “assignee.” The legal nature of the assignment and the contractual terms of the agreement between the parties determines some additional rights and liabilities that accompany the assignment. The assignment of rights under a contract usually completely transfers the rights to the assignee to receive the benefits accruing under the contract. Ordinarily, the term assignment is limited to the transfer of rights that are intangible, like contractual rights and rights connected with property. Merchants Service Co. v. Small Claims Court , 35 Cal. 2d 109, 113-114 (Cal. 1950).

An assignment will generally be permitted under the law unless there is an express prohibition against assignment in the underlying contract or lease. Where assignments are permitted, the assignor need not consult the other party to the contract but may merely assign the rights at that time. However, an assignment cannot have any adverse effect on the duties of the other party to the contract, nor can it diminish the chance of the other party receiving complete performance. The assignor normally remains liable unless there is an agreement to the contrary by the other party to the contract.

The effect of a valid assignment is to remove privity between the assignor and the obligor and create privity between the obligor and the assignee. Privity is usually defined as a direct and immediate contractual relationship. See Merchants case above.

Further, for the assignment to be effective in most jurisdictions, it must occur in the present. One does not normally assign a future right; the assignment vests immediate rights and obligations.

No specific language is required to create an assignment so long as the assignor makes clear his/her intent to assign identified contractual rights to the assignee. Since expensive litigation can erupt from ambiguous or vague language, obtaining the correct verbiage is vital. An agreement must manifest the intent to transfer rights and can either be oral or in writing and the rights assigned must be certain.

Note that an assignment of an interest is the transfer of some identifiable property, claim, or right from the assignor to the assignee. The assignment operates to transfer to the assignee all of the rights, title, or interest of the assignor in the thing assigned. A transfer of all rights, title, and interests conveys everything that the assignor owned in the thing assigned and the assignee stands in the shoes of the assignor. Knott v. McDonald’s Corp ., 985 F. Supp. 1222 (N.D. Cal. 1997)

The parties must intend to effectuate an assignment at the time of the transfer, although no particular language or procedure is necessary. As long ago as the case of National Reserve Co. v. Metropolitan Trust Co ., 17 Cal. 2d 827 (Cal. 1941), the court held that in determining what rights or interests pass under an assignment, the intention of the parties as manifested in the instrument is controlling.

The intent of the parties to an assignment is a question of fact to be derived not only from the instrument executed by the parties but also from the surrounding circumstances. When there is no writing to evidence the intention to transfer some identifiable property, claim, or right, it is necessary to scrutinize the surrounding circumstances and parties’ acts to ascertain their intentions. Strosberg v. Brauvin Realty Servs., 295 Ill. App. 3d 17 (Ill. App. Ct. 1st Dist. 1998)

The general rule applicable to assignments of choses in action is that an assignment, unless there is a contract to the contrary, carries with it all securities held by the assignor as collateral to the claim and all rights incidental thereto and vests in the assignee the equitable title to such collateral securities and incidental rights. An unqualified assignment of a contract or chose in action, however, with no indication of the intent of the parties, vests in the assignee the assigned contract or chose and all rights and remedies incidental thereto.

More examples: In Strosberg v. Brauvin Realty Servs ., 295 Ill. App. 3d 17 (Ill. App. Ct. 1st Dist. 1998), the court held that the assignee of a party to a subordination agreement is entitled to the benefits and is subject to the burdens of the agreement. In Florida E. C. R. Co. v. Eno , 99 Fla. 887 (Fla. 1930), the court held that the mere assignment of all sums due in and of itself creates no different or other liability of the owner to the assignee than that which existed from the owner to the assignor.

And note that even though an assignment vests in the assignee all rights, remedies, and contingent benefits which are incidental to the thing assigned, those which are personal to the assignor and for his sole benefit are not assigned. Rasp v. Hidden Valley Lake, Inc ., 519 N.E.2d 153, 158 (Ind. Ct. App. 1988). Thus, if the underlying agreement provides that a service can only be provided to X, X cannot assign that right to Y.

Novation Compared to Assignment:

Although the difference between a novation and an assignment may appear narrow, it is an essential one. “Novation is a act whereby one party transfers all its obligations and benefits under a contract to a third party.” In a novation, a third party successfully substitutes the original party as a party to the contract. “When a contract is novated, the other contracting party must be left in the same position he was in prior to the novation being made.”

A sublease is the transfer when a tenant retains some right of reentry onto the leased premises. However, if the tenant transfers the entire leasehold estate, retaining no right of reentry or other reversionary interest, then the transfer is an assignment. The assignor is normally also removed from liability to the landlord only if the landlord consents or allowed that right in the lease. In a sublease, the original tenant is not released from the obligations of the original lease.

Equitable Assignments:

An equitable assignment is one in which one has a future interest and is not valid at law but valid in a court of equity. In National Bank of Republic v. United Sec. Life Ins. & Trust Co. , 17 App. D.C. 112 (D.C. Cir. 1900), the court held that to constitute an equitable assignment of a chose in action, the following has to occur generally: anything said written or done, in pursuance of an agreement and for valuable consideration, or in consideration of an antecedent debt, to place a chose in action or fund out of the control of the owner, and appropriate it to or in favor of another person, amounts to an equitable assignment. Thus, an agreement, between a debtor and a creditor, that the debt shall be paid out of a specific fund going to the debtor may operate as an equitable assignment.

In Egyptian Navigation Co. v. Baker Invs. Corp. , 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30804 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 14, 2008), the court stated that an equitable assignment occurs under English law when an assignor, with an intent to transfer his/her right to a chose in action, informs the assignee about the right so transferred.

An executory agreement or a declaration of trust are also equitable assignments if unenforceable as assignments by a court of law but enforceable by a court of equity exercising sound discretion according to the circumstances of the case. Since California combines courts of equity and courts of law, the same court would hear arguments as to whether an equitable assignment had occurred. Quite often, such relief is granted to avoid fraud or unjust enrichment.

Note that obtaining an assignment through fraudulent means invalidates the assignment. Fraud destroys the validity of everything into which it enters. It vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents, and even judgments. Walker v. Rich , 79 Cal. App. 139 (Cal. App. 1926). If an assignment is made with the fraudulent intent to delay, hinder, and defraud creditors, then it is void as fraudulent in fact. See our article on Transfers to Defraud Creditors .

But note that the motives that prompted an assignor to make the transfer will be considered as immaterial and will constitute no defense to an action by the assignee, if an assignment is considered as valid in all other respects.

Enforceability of Assignments:

Whether a right under a contract is capable of being transferred is determined by the law of the place where the contract was entered into. The validity and effect of an assignment is determined by the law of the place of assignment. The validity of an assignment of a contractual right is governed by the law of the state with the most significant relationship to the assignment and the parties.

In some jurisdictions, the traditional conflict of laws rules governing assignments has been rejected and the law of the place having the most significant contacts with the assignment applies. In Downs v. American Mut. Liability Ins. Co ., 14 N.Y.2d 266 (N.Y. 1964), a wife and her husband separated and the wife obtained a judgment of separation from the husband in New York. The judgment required the husband to pay a certain yearly sum to the wife. The husband assigned 50 percent of his future salary, wages, and earnings to the wife. The agreement authorized the employer to make such payments to the wife.

After the husband moved from New York, the wife learned that he was employed by an employer in Massachusetts. She sent the proper notice and demanded payment under the agreement. The employer refused and the wife brought an action for enforcement. The court observed that Massachusetts did not prohibit assignment of the husband’s wages. Moreover, Massachusetts law was not controlling because New York had the most significant relationship with the assignment. Therefore, the court ruled in favor of the wife.

Therefore, the validity of an assignment is determined by looking to the law of the forum with the most significant relationship to the assignment itself. To determine the applicable law of assignments, the court must look to the law of the state which is most significantly related to the principal issue before it.

Assignment of Contractual Rights:

Generally, the law allows the assignment of a contractual right unless the substitution of rights would materially change the duty of the obligor, materially increase the burden or risk imposed on the obligor by the contract, materially impair the chance of obtaining return performance, or materially reduce the value of the performance to the obligor. Restat 2d of Contracts, § 317(2)(a). This presumes that the underlying agreement is silent on the right to assign.

If the contract specifically precludes assignment, the contractual right is not assignable. Whether a contract is assignable is a matter of contractual intent and one must look to the language used by the parties to discern that intent.

In the absence of an express provision to the contrary, the rights and duties under a bilateral executory contract that does not involve personal skill, trust, or confidence may be assigned without the consent of the other party. But note that an assignment is invalid if it would materially alter the other party’s duties and responsibilities. Once an assignment is effective, the assignee stands in the shoes of the assignor and assumes all of assignor’s rights. Hence, after a valid assignment, the assignor’s right to performance is extinguished, transferred to assignee, and the assignee possesses the same rights, benefits, and remedies assignor once possessed. Robert Lamb Hart Planners & Architects v. Evergreen, Ltd. , 787 F. Supp. 753 (S.D. Ohio 1992).

On the other hand, an assignee’s right against the obligor is subject to “all of the limitations of the assignor’s right, all defenses thereto, and all set-offs and counterclaims which would have been available against the assignor had there been no assignment, provided that these defenses and set-offs are based on facts existing at the time of the assignment.” See Robert Lamb , case, above.

The power of the contract to restrict assignment is broad. Usually, contractual provisions that restrict assignment of the contract without the consent of the obligor are valid and enforceable, even when there is statutory authorization for the assignment. The restriction of the power to assign is often ineffective unless the restriction is expressly and precisely stated. Anti-assignment clauses are effective only if they contain clear, unambiguous language of prohibition. Anti-assignment clauses protect only the obligor and do not affect the transaction between the assignee and assignor.

Usually, a prohibition against the assignment of a contract does not prevent an assignment of the right to receive payments due, unless circumstances indicate the contrary. Moreover, the contracting parties cannot, by a mere non-assignment provision, prevent the effectual alienation of the right to money which becomes due under the contract.

A contract provision prohibiting or restricting an assignment may be waived, or a party may so act as to be estopped from objecting to the assignment, such as by effectively ratifying the assignment. The power to void an assignment made in violation of an anti-assignment clause may be waived either before or after the assignment. See our article on Contracts.

Noncompete Clauses and Assignments:

Of critical import to most buyers of businesses is the ability to ensure that key employees of the business being purchased cannot start a competing company. Some states strictly limit such clauses, some do allow them. California does restrict noncompete clauses, only allowing them under certain circumstances. A common question in those states that do allow them is whether such rights can be assigned to a new party, such as the buyer of the buyer.

A covenant not to compete, also called a non-competitive clause, is a formal agreement prohibiting one party from performing similar work or business within a designated area for a specified amount of time. This type of clause is generally included in contracts between employer and employee and contracts between buyer and seller of a business.

Many workers sign a covenant not to compete as part of the paperwork required for employment. It may be a separate document similar to a non-disclosure agreement, or buried within a number of other clauses in a contract. A covenant not to compete is generally legal and enforceable, although there are some exceptions and restrictions.

Whenever a company recruits skilled employees, it invests a significant amount of time and training. For example, it often takes years before a research chemist or a design engineer develops a workable knowledge of a company’s product line, including trade secrets and highly sensitive information. Once an employee gains this knowledge and experience, however, all sorts of things can happen. The employee could work for the company until retirement, accept a better offer from a competing company or start up his or her own business.

A covenant not to compete may cover a number of potential issues between employers and former employees. Many companies spend years developing a local base of customers or clients. It is important that this customer base not fall into the hands of local competitors. When an employee signs a covenant not to compete, he or she usually agrees not to use insider knowledge of the company’s customer base to disadvantage the company. The covenant not to compete often defines a broad geographical area considered off-limits to former employees, possibly tens or hundreds of miles.

Another area of concern covered by a covenant not to compete is a potential ‘brain drain’. Some high-level former employees may seek to recruit others from the same company to create new competition. Retention of employees, especially those with unique skills or proprietary knowledge, is vital for most companies, so a covenant not to compete may spell out definite restrictions on the hiring or recruiting of employees.

A covenant not to compete may also define a specific amount of time before a former employee can seek employment in a similar field. Many companies offer a substantial severance package to make sure former employees are financially solvent until the terms of the covenant not to compete have been met.

Because the use of a covenant not to compete can be controversial, a handful of states, including California, have largely banned this type of contractual language. The legal enforcement of these agreements falls on individual states, and many have sided with the employee during arbitration or litigation. A covenant not to compete must be reasonable and specific, with defined time periods and coverage areas. If the agreement gives the company too much power over former employees or is ambiguous, state courts may declare it to be overbroad and therefore unenforceable. In such case, the employee would be free to pursue any employment opportunity, including working for a direct competitor or starting up a new company of his or her own.

It has been held that an employee’s covenant not to compete is assignable where one business is transferred to another, that a merger does not constitute an assignment of a covenant not to compete, and that a covenant not to compete is enforceable by a successor to the employer where the assignment does not create an added burden of employment or other disadvantage to the employee. However, in some states such as Hawaii, it has also been held that a covenant not to compete is not assignable and under various statutes for various reasons that such covenants are not enforceable against an employee by a successor to the employer. Hawaii v. Gannett Pac. Corp. , 99 F. Supp. 2d 1241 (D. Haw. 1999)

It is vital to obtain the relevant law of the applicable state before drafting or attempting to enforce assignment rights in this particular area.

Conclusion:

In the current business world of fast changing structures, agreements, employees and projects, the ability to assign rights and obligations is essential to allow flexibility and adjustment to new situations. Conversely, the ability to hold a contracting party into the deal may be essential for the future of a party. Thus, the law of assignments and the restriction on same is a critical aspect of every agreement and every structure. This basic provision is often glanced at by the contracting parties, or scribbled into the deal at the last minute but can easily become the most vital part of the transaction.

As an example, one client of ours came into the office outraged that his co venturer on a sizable exporting agreement, who had excellent connections in Brazil, had elected to pursue another venture instead and assigned the agreement to a party unknown to our client and without the business contacts our client considered vital. When we examined the handwritten agreement our client had drafted in a restaurant in Sao Paolo, we discovered there was no restriction on assignment whatsoever…our client had not even considered that right when drafting the agreement after a full day of work.

One choses who one does business with carefully…to ensure that one’s choice remains the party on the other side of the contract, one must master the ability to negotiate proper assignment provisions.

Founded in 1939, our law firm combines the ability to represent clients in domestic or international matters with the personal interaction with clients that is traditional to a long established law firm.

Important Considerations in Seeking a landlord’s Consent to Assignment

This article explores the key points which tenants must consider when seeking their landlord’s consent to an assignment of their lease. The topic may conveniently be divided into five sections, as follows:

has an application for consent was submitted by the tenant?
what information can the landlord request in respect of the assignee?
did the landlord withhold its consent to the assignment?
was it unreasonable for the landlord to withhold its consent, contrary to s133B of the Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW) (the Act ) (which provides that, where a lease requires the landlord’s consent to an assignment of the lease, the landlord’s consent must not be unreasonably withheld)?
will the tenant be released from all future liability under the lease after the assignment?

Has an application for consent been submitted?

The starting point for a tenant is to submit to the landlord (usually) a written request to assign its leasehold interest in accordance with the terms of the lease ( Tenant’s Notice ). The landlord’s obligation to consider the tenant’s request for assignment only arises upon receipt of the Tenant’s Notice. In decision of Tamsco Ltd v Franklins Ltd 1 , the Court emphasised the significance of the tenant actually having to actually request the landlord’s consent.

This is the case even where ‘the assignee is a person to whom there could be no reasonable objection 2 . Before the tenant provides information relating to, for example, the assignee’s financial capabilities required for obtaining the landlord’s consent, it must properly communicate its request for consent to the landlord (in compliance with not only the assignment provisions, but also the notice provisions under the lease).

What information can the landlord request in respect of the assignee?

The starting point here is to consider the terms of the assignment provision of the lease, which should specify the information the tenant must provide to the landlord in respect of the assignee.

For example, many leases will require the tenant to prove to the landlord that the assignee:

is a respectable, responsible and solvent person, capable of complying with the terms of the lease; and
has adequate financial standing not inferior to that of the tenant.

In this respect, it is common for tenants to provide to the landlord copies of the assignee’s tax returns and balance sheets (to evidence the adequate financial standing and solvency) and references from peers to evidence their responsibility and respectability in operating their business within the relevant industry.

It should be noted that a landlord may not ‘oppressively demand extensive particulars or insist upon the equivalent of answers to interrogatories’ 3 . All that is required is fair dealing between the parties to enable the landlord to make a ‘reasonable decision’ 4 . So, it is important that landlords do not request any information inconsistent with what is permitted by the terms of the lease or which is irrelevant for the landlord making an informed decision in relation to whether its consent should be provided.

Did the landlord withhold its consent to the assignment?

The question here is whether after:

formally requesting the landlord’s consent; and
submitting to the landlord all information relating to the assignee required by the landlord (as dictated by the assignment provisions in the lease) to assess whether its consent should be provided to the assignment, the landlord has refused to consent to the proposed assignment.

In practice, where a landlord refuses to consent to an assignment of the lease, it will serve a notice to that effect on the tenant. However, where landlords are silent on whether they have consented to the assignment, their conduct becomes relevant for consideration. Courts have decided that some landlords, by virtue of their conduct alone, have consented to assignments. This occurred in Chamberlain Group Pty Ltd v Kids for Life Academy Pty Ltd 5 , where the landlord, for example:

had knowledge that the assignee was already occupying the premises and did not object to such occupation; and
collected rent from the assignee 6 .

If the landlord did withhold its consent, was it unreasonable for it to do so?

A landlord will have typically acted unreasonably where it has refused to provide its consent to an assignment for purposes unconnected with the subject matter of the lease 7 . For instance, it is generally unreasonable for a landlord to refuse to provide its consent to obtain a ‘collateral advantage’ which has no relationship with the terms of the lease.

An example of this may include a landlord making the granting of its consent conditional upon a lump sum cash payment by the tenant to the landlord, an advantage which the landlord would not have otherwise been entitled to under the lease.

Will the tenant be released from all future liability under the lease after the assignment?

For commercial leases, if a lease is silent in relation to whether a tenant is released on assignment, then the tenant will not be released on assignment.

For example, this will mean that where the assignee fails to pay rent under the lease after the assignment occurs, the landlord may still sue the tenant to recover the unpaid rent.

If a tenant wants to be released on assignment, it is important for it to include an express release on assignment in the lease agreement or negotiate an express release within the deed of consent to assignment.

What does this mean for tenants?

Tenants must ensure that they have properly communicated to the landlord their request for the landlord’s consent to an assignment of the lease. It is always prudent to prepare the request in writing and serve it on the landlord in accordance with the notice provisions in the lease.

Where the landlord has considered the request and unreasonably refuses to provide its consent, there are remedies available to tenants. Notably, tenants may seek a declaration by the NSW Supreme Court to the effect that the landlord has unreasonably withheld its consent to the assignment, contrary to section 133B of the Act.

What does this mean for landlords?

When a tenant makes a formal request for consent to an assignment, landlords must ensure they are not taken to have impliedly (by their conduct) consented to the assignment of the lease. Landlords should:

promptly acknowledge receipt of the tenant’s request for consent to the assignment; and
request financial (and other) information relating to the proposed assignee in accordance with the terms of the lease (which, practically speaking, should be done at the same time they acknowledge receipt of the tenant’s request).

This will equip landlords with all information they require to make a proper and informed decision as to whether they ought to be consenting to the assignment of the lease. However, landlords should note that they should only request information which would have a direct impact on their willingness to provide or withhold their consent.

Furthermore, landlords must note the importance of ensuring that the tenant is not released on an assignment of the lease. This may also make leased assets more ‘bankable’ and may increase the capital value of landlords’ assets.

If you require any assistance relating to retail and commercial leasing transactions, commercial acquisitions and disposals and other real estate transactions, contact Partner John Frangi on 0417 252 203 or by email .

1 [2001] NSWSC 1205. 2 Ibid [37]. 3 Daventry Holdings Pty Ltd v Bacalakis Hotels Pty Ltd [1986] 1 Qd R 406, 543. 4 Ibid. 5 [2015] NSWCA 241. 6 Ibid [27]–[28]. 7 Ashworth Frazer Ltd v Gloucester City Council [2001] UKHL 59 [3].

Bobby Nader

Taste of australia – march 2024, ‘mr lehrmann made the mistake of going back for his hat’ – what potential defamation plaintiffs may learn from the judgment against bruce lehrmann, asx compliance update, hamilton locke private: estate planning 101, generational reforms to merger control: what you need to know, hamilton locke advises european energy on 56mw mokoan solar farm, hamilton locke acts for alceon private equity on a multi-currency acquisition facility for the acquisition of a 50% interest in boss engineering, licensing essentials: the good, the bad and the ugly.

Our Culture
Powerful Together with Source
Community and Pro Bono
Awards and Recognition
Australian Growth Company Awards
Technology Scale-Up Awards
Capital Markets
Corporate, M&A and Private Equity
Energy, Resources, Construction and Infrastructure
Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG)
Funds and Financial Services
IP and Technology
Litigation and Dispute Resolution
Restructuring and Insolvency
Workplace and Employment
Financial Services
Food and Agribusiness
Health, Care and Education
Mining and Resources
New Energy and Carbon Markets
Real Estate Markets
News, Insights and Resources
Privacy Policy - AU
Privacy Policy - NZ

Sydney Australia Square, Level 42 / 264 George St Sydney, NSW 2000 View Map

Melbourne Level 33/360 Collins St Melbourne, VIC 3000 View Map

Perth Central Park, Level 48 / 152-158 St Georges Tce Perth, WA 6000 View Map

Brisbane Riverside Centre, Level 19 / 123 Eagle St Brisbane, QLD 4000 View Map

Newcastle Level 3 / 21 Bolton St Newcastle NSW 2300 View Map

Auckland Vero Centre, Level 35 / 48 Shortland St Auckland 1010, New Zealand View Map

Hamilton Locke Australia is operated by Hamilton Locke Pty Ltd (ACN 621 047 247) ( Hamilton Locke Australia ). Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.

Hamilton Locke New Zealand is operated by Hamilton Locke (NZ) Limited (Company No. 8463155) ( Hamilton Locke NZ ).

ASSIGNMENT OF LEASE BY LESSEE

Read also: PERSONS DISQUALIFIED TO BECOME LESSEES

The lessee cannot assign the lease without the consent of the lessor.

The assignment of a lease by the lessee involves a transfer of rights and obligations pertaining to the contract; hence, the consent of the lessor is necessary.

There arises the new juridical relation between the lessor and the assignee who is converted into a new lessee.

C an a lessee assign the lease of the house to another, without the consent of the lessor?

No, unless there is a stipulation to that effect.

The law says:

“The lessee cannot assign the lease without the consent of the lessor, unless there is a stipulation to the contrary.”

In the case of Josie Go Tamio v. Encarnacion Ticson ( G.R. NO. 154895, November 18, 2004) , the Court explained that, the objective of the law in prohibiting the assignment of the lease without the lessor’s consent is to protect the owner or lessor of the leased property. In the case of cession or assignment of lease rights on real property, there is a novation by the substitution of the person of one of the parties – – the lessee. The personality of the lessee, who dissociates from the lease, disappears; only two persons remain in the juridical relation – – the lessor and the assignee who is converted into the new lessee.

Thus, there arises the new juridical relation between the lessor and the assignee who is converted into a new lessee.

Hence, the lessee cannot assign the lease without the consent of the lessor (creditor), unless there is a stipulation granting him that right.

Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices specializes in business law and labor law consulting. For inquiries, you may reach us at [email protected], or dial us at (02)7745-4391/0917-5772207.

SUBSCRIBE NOW FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES!

[email-subscribers-form id=”4″]

21 thoughts on “ ASSIGNMENT OF LEASE BY LESSEE ”

Appreciation to my father who shared with me on the topic of this website, this weblog is genuinely amazing.

What happens if a lease is assigned without Landlord Consent?

Almost every commercial lease will provide that before a lease can be assigned, the consent of the landlord must be obtained. If you have commercial premises associated with your business there are some very good reasons to make sure that the assignment of the lease is properly handled.

We recently acted for a commercial tenant. This client came to us with a big problem, which had only become obvious to them a year after the date of the sale of their business.

The commercial tenant had sold their business a year earlier and had assigned the lease of the business premises to the buyer. Things did not go smoothly.

The landlord set out the conditions upon which consent would be given.

Most of the conditions were satisfied but, not all of them. The landlord had required (as is normal) a deed of consent to assignment.

The seller and the buyer had apparently both signed the deed of consent to assignment and the Deed had been left with the buyer to send back to the Landlord.

The transfer of the lease was also left with the buyer so that the assignment of the lease could be registered at the titles office. The assignment was not registered. But the buyer took possession of the premises.

The buyer did not return the Deed of Assignment to the landlord and did not stamp or register the transfer of lease.

The buyer is now in liquidation. The landlord claims that consent was never given to the assignment.

The tenant is being sued by the landlord for a very large sum of money.

The moral of the story is that all of the risk is with the seller. Therefore, it is the seller that must make sure that they have a copy of consent in writing signed by all parties before, the sale proceeds. The only substitute is a solicitors undertaking.

If the consent is not given the seller has

lost control of the premises and
still has the responsibility to pay all rental and other lease costs.

RIBA Business Lawyers

Strength through knowledge, franchising, leasing, acquisitions, head office: 34 duporth avenue, maroochydore, sunshine coast, queensland., maroochydore: 07 54791488, brisbane: 31032115.

Why the FAA rejected the New College of Florida and Sarasota Bradenton Airport land swap

The Federal Aviation Administration indicated it rejected a land deal between New College of Florida and the Sarasota Bradenton International Airport because it saw little value to the airport in giving up the property compared with holding onto it. The agency also criticized the appraisal estimating the land's value in the airport-New College deal.

"It appears a greater benefit results from retaining the property," according to the FAA letter signed by Orlando Airports District Office Acting Manager Rebecca Henry. "Policy states that Surplus Property should not be released unless there is no greater benefit from retaining the property."

Airport and New College representatives declined comment on the federal agency's conclusions, indicating a formal response contesting the FAA's determination will be filed.

The FAA notified Sarasota Bradenton International Airport officials last week that it had declined the airport's request to release the property from federal obligations to facilitate a deal with New College to keep the land and buildings their for its long-term campus plan.

FAA rules require fair market value for the sale or lease of airport land, but the college's low-cost lease, set to expire in 2056, was made many years before the rule was implemented and was grandfathered in as a result.

Catch up: FAA rejects a major land deal between New College of Florida and Sarasota Airport

More: Officials detail plans for major land swap between New College and SRQ airport

New College housing deemed incompatible with airport operations

New College signed a 99-year land lease in October 1957, but the lease was meant for retail development that never occurred, according to the FAA.

There are 15 New College facilities on the 34.8 acres leased from the airport for $108,072 per year. They provide residential student or staff dormitories, meeting rooms, student lounges and activity centers and utility housing, recreational game fields a swimming pool, and a retention area.

"Based on information reviewed by the Agency, it appears the land leased to New College was converted from aeronautical use to nonaeronautical educational/residential use without FAA consent," Henry wrote.

"There are residential elements (student housing) in the existing New College leasehold," she wrote. "Neither FAA policy nor the 1947 Surplus Property deed itself allow the airport to be used for nonaeronautical purposes, particularly residential purposes, without FAA consent."

She noted that FAA guidance requires all airport properties to be zoned Airport/Light Industrial, which is consistent with federal grant assurances.

FAA raises concern over appraisal of the property

The FAA claims that the appraisal for the airport land proposed for sale to New College is faulty, and was conducted on only about 8.85 acres of airport property rather than the full 30.9 acres proposed for sale to the college.

The FAA also raised issue with properties that were used for comparison.

Those properties include a self-storage facility located 40 miles away, an undisclosed commercial space located about 26 miles away, a pending sale of a property zoned as institutional/commercial/industrial eight miles away, the pending sale of property zoned as "open use rural" located 10 miles away, and a pending sale for planned residential multifamily development six miles away."These comparable sales are not thought to be similar to the highest and best use of this property, which the sponsor states are medical/ institutional/charitable office and meeting space," Henry said. "Note, the highest and best use should be airport/light industrial, or possibly commercial use."

Henry noted that the property appraisal appears to have missing information, and is not an "unrestricted appraisal" as required by federal guidelines.

"In fact, it appears the appraiser only reviewed the latest and very abbreviated lease assignment document and not the lease in its totality," Henry said.

FAA claims SRQ Airport's master plan is outdated

The FAA also said that the SRQ airport's master plan, or at least its Airport Layout Plan, are outdated and should be revised to determine if there is any aeronautical need for the property in the future.

"The most recent FAA approved Airport Layout Plan (ALP) is dated 2021 and is based on a Master Plan completed the same year," Henry said. "However, the Master Plan data is thought to be at least six years old and is expected to be outdated, especially in light of the sponsor’s assertions they are the fastest growing airport in the country."

SRQ set a record in 2023 with more than 4.3 million passengers , including 406,113 passengers in December, a 7.5% increase compared to the 377,775 passengers in December 2022. The 12-month activity through December 2023 totaled 4,322,408 passengers, a 12% increase in passengers for the calendar year, compared to 2022's 3,847,606 passengers.

The airport is undergoing a major expansion due to its rapid multi-year growth. S everal projects are underway , including $10 million in contracts to expand parking and a more than $45 million to upgrade the baggage handling systems and construction of a new terminal, with the combined cost for all the work estimated at about $200 million.

IMAGES

How to Fill a Lease Assignment Form
Consent Lessor Form
Lease Assignment Agreement
Assignment of Residential Lease with Landlord Consent Form
Free Assignment of Lease Form
Assignment Of Lease By Lessee

VIDEO

Informed Consent Video Assignment
Informed Consent Class Assignment
Informed Consent Video Assignment
Informed Consent SOCWK570 Tanner
VTU, 21RMI56, Research Methodology & IPR, Question & Answer, Module 4, Part 4
MFT 630 Informed Consent Case Assignment

COMMENTS

PDF Exhibit F Assignment and Assumption of Lease Agreement and Landlord's
Consent to Assignment. Subject to the terms, covenants and conditions of this Agreement, the Landlord consents to the assignment by the Assignor to the Assignee of all of the Assignor's right, title and interest in and to the Lease. The Landlord's consent may not be assigned. 6. Condition of Premises. No representations or warranties have ...
Assignment and Assumption of Lease and Landlord Consent
Its: Its: LANDLORD'S CONSENT. By its execution below, Landlord consents to this assignment of the Lease to Assignee and acknowledges the continuance of the Lease by and between Assignee and Landlord. Landlord is not a party to the assignment and executes this document for the limited purpose of granting its consent.
Navigating the assignment of a residential lease
Most often, the lease won't permit assignment without the landlord's approval, but leases often state that the landlord cannot unreasonably withhold consent. As long as you produce a tenant who's shown a history of payment under prior leases and has been a model tenant, a landlord should consent to assignment.
Assignment of Lease: Definition & How They Work (2023)
The landlord must consent to the assignment of the lease prior to the assignment. For example, Jake is renting a commercial property for his business from Paul for two years beginning January 2013 up until January 2015. In January 2014, Jake suffers a financial crisis and has to close down his business to move to a different city. ...
PDF Decisions Applying the Reasonable Consent Standard to Assignments
Therefore, what is a landlord to do when the tenant requests consent to an assignment of the tenant's interest in its lease, in the context of either (1) a require-ment that consent "not be unreasonably withheld" being stated in the lease's assignment clause (without further guidance), or (2) the law of the applicable juris-
PDF LANDLORD CONSENT TO ASSIGNMENT OF LEASE & GUIDE
of the parties' intent to assign the tenant's interest in the Lease and the Landlord's intent to consent. Provide a brief description of the property being rented, and the name of the third party to whom the Lease is being assigned. Attach a copy of the Lease to the consent as Exhibit A. • Section 1: Consent to Assignment.
Assignment of lease without consent
Assignment of lease without consent. After failing to provide the landlord with two satisfactory guarantors before the assignment of the lease, a tenant assigned the lease without obtaining the landlord's consent. The landlord forfeited the lease and the tenant's application for relief from forfeiture failed. Although relatively unusual for the ...
Let's Be Reasonable: Landlord Consents to Lease Assignment
The law requires that the landlord act reasonably in exercising its discretion. A standard provision of commercial leases is the requirement for tenants to obtain landlord consent to an assignment of the lease. To protect tenants from a potential power imbalance between the landlord and the tenant, these provisions often specify that the ...
PDF ASSIGNMENT OF RESIDENTIAL LEASE (WITH LANDLORD CONSENT) & GUIDE
Most leases will require the landlord's written consent before an assignment becomes effective. Review the original lease agreement for additional information, and to see if there are other requirements that must be met to make the transfer valid. Although a landlord is not required to consent to a lease assignment, in some cases your lease
Withholding Consent to Assignment: The Changing Rights of the
breach of a clause in the lease prohibiting assignment without landlord consent is not void, but is voidable only at the lessor's option. Klee v. United States, 53 F.2d 58, 60 (9th Cir. 1931); ... 290 (1975) (assignment of lease by lessee without written consent of lessor void); Jacobs v. Klawans, 225 Md. 147, 169 A.2d 677 (1961) (right of ...
Consent to Lease Assignment
For leases that were executed prior to September 23, 1983, and with assignment provisions that do not include a standard for landlord consent, landlords may be unreasonable when withholding their consent (See Code §1996.270 - legislative findings and declarations- confirming that Code §1995.260 does not apply retroactively to leases ...
Commercial Lease Assignment and Sublet Provisions
If a lease provision "requires that consent to an assignment will not be unreasonably or arbitrarily withheld, a landlord is held to the standard of conduct of a reasonably prudent person." 24 Therefore, a landlord must only consider "those factors that relate to a landlord's interest in preserving the value of the property," 25 which ...
Can a Landlord Refuse Consent to Lease Assignment?
To prove a landlord has been unreasonable, the tenant must show one of two grounds for refusing consent; the landlord was arbitrary or capricious or based his refusal on personal taste, prejudice or convenience. Some standard provisions in lease assignment clauses that relieve the Landlord of even having to consider consent are whether the ...
Unreasonably withholding consent to assign a lease
Section 19 (1) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1927 says that for all leases where there is a requirement on a tenant to obtain a landlord's consent before assigning, underletting or in any way changing possession of all or part of the premises, consent is not to be unreasonably withheld. As a result, a landlord must always act reasonably ...
Assignment and Consent Standards in Commercial Leases
The law traditionally favors the free alienation of property. Therefore, under the laws of almost every state, if the lease is silent on whether the landlord's consent to an assignment is required, then the commercial tenant has the right to assign its interest. This is true in Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia.
Assignment Of Lease Without Consent
Commercial Lease Assignment without Consent: This refers to the unauthorized transfer of a commercial lease, which involves properties used for business purposes, such as retail spaces, office complexes, or warehouses. Without the landlord's consent, such an assignment can disrupt the balance of the property's usage, pose financial risks, or ...
Assignments: The Basic Law
Assignments: The Basic Law. The assignment of a right or obligation is a common contractual event under the law and the right to assign (or prohibition against assignments) is found in the majority of agreements, leases and business structural documents created in the United States. As with many terms commonly used, people are familiar with the ...
Landlord's Consent to Lease Assignment Form (US)
With LawDepot's Consent to Lease Assignment template, tenants provide landlords with all of the necessary information to transfer their interest in a lease, including: Information about the original lease. The name of the new tenant (i.e. the assignee) The date the assignee takes over the lease.
Let's Be Reasonable: Landlord Consents to Lease Assignment
The law requires that the landlord act reasonably in exercising its discretion. A standard provision of commercial leases is the requirement for tenants to obtain landlord consent to an assignment ...
Nonassignability Clauses in Commercial Leases: When is an assignment
The plaintiff alleged that the collateral assignment of the lease to Continental breached the anti-assignment clause in the lease stating that "Tenant shall not assign this Lease without prior notice or written consent of Lessor.". While acknowledging that this was a case of first impression in Illinois, the appellate court affirmed the ...
Important Considerations in Seeking a landlord's Consent to Assignment
Tenants must ensure that they have properly communicated to the landlord their request for the landlord's consent to an assignment of the lease. It is always prudent to prepare the request in writing and serve it on the landlord in accordance with the notice provisions in the lease. Where the landlord has considered the request and ...
Assignment of Lease by Lessee
The law says: "The lessee cannot assign the lease without the consent of the lessor, unless there is a stipulation to the contrary.". The assignment of a lease by the lessee involves a transfer of rights and obligations pertaining to the contract; hence, the consent of the lessor is necessary. In the case of Josie Go Tamio v.
What happens if a lease is assigned without Landlord Consent?
The landlord claims that consent was never given to the assignment. The tenant is being sued by the landlord for a very large sum of money. The moral of the story is that all of the risk is with the seller. Therefore, it is the seller that must make sure that they have a copy of consent in writing signed by all parties before, the sale proceeds.
New College and SRQ airport land swap rejection explained
New College signed a 99-year land lease in October 1957, but the lease was meant for retail development that never occurred, according to the FAA.. There are 15 New College facilities on the 34.8 ...