Business Law, Commercial Litigation and International Business Law

We offer over 25 years experience in business, business law, commercial litigation and international business. As well as, corporate representation and business formation, including contracts and intellectual property.



Business Law, Commercial Litigation and International Business Law

01 December 2011

Asset and Liability Protection for Your Business or Rental/Investment Property


If you purchased real estate as part of a business purchase, if you inherited real estate, if you are retired and own properties you want to turn into rental properties, the organizational engineering you do is not just to save on taxes.  The cheapest form of insurance you can buy may be the limited liability you gain when you keep your property in a limited liability company (“ LLC”) or limited partnership  designed to protect you from the liability associated with property.

Forming an entity to hold your property is not just
an attempt by an attorney to get paid for doing legal work.  Look up the name of any apartment house or other piece of investment property in Phoenix or in Arizona online at the Corporation Commission; then, once you have the name of the entity which owns the property , search for properties held under the name of the entity at the Assessor’s Office.  These days, almost always, the property is held by an LLC.  Why?  Apart from tax reasons, the biggest reason to put an investment property into an LLC is to separate it as an asset from your other property.

Why an LLC rather than a corporation?  For one thing, putting real estate into a corporation can have extremely negative tax consequences.  But, more generally even for non-real property investments, e.g. your business itself, LLCs are now commonly used because they are easier to form and operate.    Fifteen years ago, corporations were the rule, and LLCs were the exception.  The IRS barely recognized LLCs, and didn’t really have a separate category for them on their forms.   Most people opted for corporations.  But LLCs, while they retain the same limited liability protection as a corporation, do not have the rigid structure and yearly responsibilities of a corporation.  You need to file an annual report every year for a corporation, and have minutes (i.e. typed records) for each annual and special meeting as well.  Also, with a corporate structure, there may be ego problems because someone needs to be the President, and someone needs to be the Secretary.  In contrast, An LLC is run more like a partnership, with members rather than shareholders, and, if desired, a Manager(s) rather than officers.  Overall, an LLC has fewer requirements to keep it running from year to year and more flexibility. 

Today LLCs are widely accepted.  In fact, so many people have formed or are forming LLCs they are now widely accepted as valid entities.  And, the IRS forms have been revised and now acknowledge the existence of an LLC as a valid business structure.   So, today, most of the entities formed, and certainly many of the entities formed to hold properties, are LLCs.

Why use an LLC to separate a piece of real estate from your other assets?

 To answer this, consider this question: What happens if the value of the property drops lower than the mortgage?  If you need to divest yourself of the property, you may be responsible for the deficiency. But, if you are fortunate enough to own the property in an LLC  - and not to have signed a personal guaranty – then you escape personal liability.  In any case, whether you have a corporation or an LLC, it soon establishes trade credit with vendors, and you, the business owner, do not have personal liability for any debt which accrues.  Also, either an LLC or corporation can shield its owners from personal liability for accidents or bodily injury on the property.      


What if you have multiple properties, e.g. restaurants?

Keep in mind that if you put all your properties into one LLC, then have a problem with one property, the other real estate assets held by that same LLC are also in peril.  One of many possible examples: Someone is injured on one of the properties owned by the LLC.  With medical costs as high as they are, many choose to attempt to recoup their medical expenses by suing the property owner for negligence.  These types of lawsuits may drag on for years, at great expense, which is why many property owners try to settle out of court, whether they believe they have legal liability for the injury or not.  The consequences in the case of a judgment are serious:

A.  If the owner of the property is you, personally, whatever judgment they get applies to you and all of your other properties, your bank account, family jewels, future earnings, etc. And this judgment stays on your public record and leaves you subject to execution or garnishment of your property until paid.  

B.  If you have three properties, and all three properties are in the same LLC, the total value of all three properties is in peril because you have “all of your eggs in one basket.”  

C.  However, if each property is in a separate  LLC, then for each claim against the LLC, only the value of that single property held by the LLC is in peril, because that is all the LLC owns.

Obviously, “C” reduces your liability the most.  You can be sure you are safe from catastrophic losses by isolating liability for each property in its own LLC.  In fact, it is not uncommon to have a trucking business as a corporation, and then the “rig” itself in a separate LLC – again, to separate liability in case of claims against one entity or the other.

Note:  We are talking here only of business property.  We are not recommending that you put your personal residence into an LLC because in some states this will cause you to lose your homestead exemption, i.e. some level of equity which the creditor cannot have.  Often, this protected equity is enough to make it unfeasible or unlawful for a creditor to take your home.

Forming an LLC is only one piece of what we call “organizational engineering.”  Another important part of owning an LLC is the Operating Agreement” which sets forth the ownership percentages, what percentage of ownership interest has been disbursed for each member, and the contribution each member made to get this percentage, and the voting rights and management authority of the members and managers.  Here, we are talking about Money and power, so, this is obviously very important and often overlooked. 

Please feel free to
call or e-mail us for more information on this and other business law issues, or visit our website for more information.


The Law Offices of Donald W. Hudspeth, P.C.
Business Law, Commercial Litigation & International Business Law
www.AZBUSLAW.com - 866-696-2033 - TheFirm@azbuslaw.com

"The Business of Our Firm is Business"

29 November 2011

Ten Common Mistakes that Business Owners Make



Business Law, Commercial Litigation & International Business Law 
Business Advise/Contracts/Development/Divorce, Dissolution/Disputes/Formation/Services, Small Business, Intellectual Property, Internet, Environment & Natural Resources, Franchising, Employment & Labor, Import & Export, Landlord & Tenant, Mergers & Acquisitions, Copyright, Buying & Selling, Business Development, Business Bankruptcy, Debt Relief, Chapter 7/11/13, Corporation, Disputes, Joint Ventures, LLC, Inc, Marketing Law, Local, Municipal, State Law, Discrimination, Federal Law, Consumer Law, Small-Business Planning, Media Law, LLC/LLP/Inc., Trademark/Copyright, Start-Ups, Spin-Offs, Construction, Retail, Organizational Engineering, .....

The Law Offices of Donald W. Hudspeth, P.C.
Business Law, Commercial Litigation & International Business Law
www.AZBUSLAW.com
 - TheFirm@azbuslaw.com

"The Business of Our Firm is Business"

14 July 2011

10 Common Mistakes that Business Owners Make...


By Donald W. Hudspeth
The following is an outline of a lecture I have given to the Edson Institute at Arizona State
University in Tempe, Arizona as well as the Arizona Small Business Development Center and the students of my business law class at ASU in Glendale, Arizona.

I am hoping this summary report will be sufficient to trigger action on the issues discussed
and to cause the reader to obtain some professional advice regarding same. I hasten to add
that the problem of intelligent, self-reliant business owners working beyond their skill set is a common problem and one that can cause life-altering harm to the do-it-yourselfer.

(Take-home motto: “Don’t operate on yourself and don’t do your own legal work.”)

1. Not Using the Corporate or Limited Liability Designation.

“Use it or lose it.” Virtually every day I see clients who form a corporation or LLC but who fail to add the designation “Inc,” or “Corporation,” to their name. This might save you money on business cards, letterhead and marketing materials, but when you get named personally in a lawsuit because the plaintiff did not know (or claims to not know) that you are doing business as an entity, you will get religion. Exaggerating to make a point: You can walk away from a failed corporation but you can’t walk away from yourself. Personal liability is one of the worst things that can happen to anyone and it is easily avoided. So, form an entity and use it in and on everything you provide to your clients and vendors.

{Newco, Inc.
WE, Corporation
Newco, LLC
Professions, PLLC}

2. Not Putting Your Assets into the Entity.

After you form the entity and use the name, e.g. “Newco, Inc.” or “Newco, LLC,” you must be sure to put all assets that you intend to belong to the business into the business. Think of the corporation or limited liability company as a bowl. Without assets the entity is just a shell; hence, the name “shell company.” If you buy furniture, fixtures or equipment, or sign leases, or hire employees, etc. you want to do so in the name of the company. (You may have to sign a personal guarantee for credit, but for asset protection, business and tax purposes, the assets need to be in the entity.

The most common mistake is the failure to put existing assets into the entity. This is done by means of a bill of sale for goods, like furniture, fixtures and equipment (“FF&E”), an assignment for intangible property, like an interest in another company, or intellectual property like contracts, a trade name, trademark or copyright, or by deed for real property like a building or land. These documents are short, easy to prepare and important.

But, they are often overlooked. So, the assets you thought you had in the business and protected are often still held personally. This can be a problem, not just for asset protection but also for tax purposes and for the future sale of the company or asset.
3. Failing to Register Trademarks, Trade Names, Copyrights and Other Intellectual Property.

{Registered Trademark ®
Trademark TM
Service Mark SM
© Copyright
pat. pend. ‐ Patent Pending}

Once your business is “up and running” one of the first things you should do is to register your name, logo, slogan and marketing materials. Think about the two sides of a coin: Underneath the coin is your customer goodwill, your customer franchise, i.e. the customers that come to your business. Above the coin is your brand – your identity in the marketplace (what you sell if you sell the business). Think: “McDonalds” as a trade name and the “Golden Arches” as the trademark (logo).

Before the rise of the Internet you could probably run your business in Phoenix without someone out of state, say in Pittsburgh, knowing you were both doing business under the same name. But today,a website is an essential tool for any business – if not for marketing, and then at least to provide information about location, hours open for business, etc. With the internet comes visibility. So, it is not uncommon for clients to come in with a letter from an out of state law firm demanding that my potential client “cease and desist” from using the other company’s name, logo or copy, especially because they have the federal registrations and my client does not.

Losing your trade name or trademark after you are in business can be a catastrophe. Because a “federal trademark trumps domain name,” overnight you may lose both your company identity and the way for potential and actual customers to find you.

Moral of the story: Register your intellectual property as soon as your business is operating.

Actually, we do it at the same time we form the corporation or LLC to avoid forming the company under a name that we cannot have because it is already in use and to avoid wasting time and money by having to start over later after the business has been in operation.

4. Just Signing a Real Property Lease.

One of the most common mistakes that I see new business owners make is to just sign the lease without having an attorney review and revise it. Clients treat the lease as an after-thought, but in reality the premises lease is the “tail that wags the business dog.” Exaggerating again (but not much) a lease could be four pages, but usually it is more like 44 pages long. The reason for the extra pages: to protect the landlord. And, by the way, speaking of the “landlord”; when is the last time you called somebody “Lord?” that should tell you something.

The typical premises lease will retain for the landlord the right to qualify any assignee of your
space. In plain English this means that you cannot sell your business to a buyer unless the buyer –as the lease assignee – is approved by the landlord. Sometimes this right is absolute; sometimes the landlord sets qualification criteria, e.g. that the new tenant would have financial status, background and experience commensurate with you and your company. But, if the new tenant has the same financial and business background as you do, then why are they buying your business? So, this can be a “Catch 22.”

The typical lease requires the landlord’s consent to make improvements inside the space – generally if the item is physically attached or added to the landlord’s space, like build-outs or “tenant improvements,” this can trigger a long procedure of architect, design, submittal, negotiation and approval. So, before long you may wonder if you are working for the landlord (often “Yes”).

(Moral of the story: Have an attorney review and revise your lease.)

As I say to my clients: It is a matter of “landmines.” (By “landmines” I mean unfavorable terms or terms the inadvertent breach of which could have serious consequences.) Due to lack of bargaining power for many clients we may not be able to rid the lease of all its negative aspects, but we can identify its important aspects to the client and the lawyer – and by going over the lease, at least the client will know what the rest of the “landmines” are.
5. Not Calculating the Interest Rate and Total Interest Paid (and Failure to Escape Same in Equipment Leases).

Equipment leases, e.g. for your computer, copier or other office or shop equipment, typically have both high interest rates and non-cancellable terms. This means that if you want to pay off the lease early you still have to pay the full interest amount as if the equipment were financed and the lender’s (lessor’s) money were used and at risk for the full amount of the term. Do you want to re-read the last sentence? Let me give you an example of that this means:

Let’s say a leasing company pays the copier dealer for your copier, then leases it to you for, say three years at $500.00 a month (or $6,000.00 a year). Thus, the total dollars paid over the three year term will be $18,000.00.

Then let’s say that the cash price of the copier from the dealer is or would have been $12,000.00. This calculates to $6,000.00 in interest ($18,000 paid less $12,000 copier cost) over three years or $2,000.00 in interest per year. That comes out to roughly 16.7% per year. (In real life this rate and the interest paid could be higher.)

Now, let’s assume that your “ship comes in” and three months after you start the copier lease you want to just pay off the balance due. On most loans typically there would be no prepayment penalty (or least not a formidable one) and you would not pay interest (rent) on the money beyond the term of actual use. In this example, the yearly interest was $2,000.00, the term of actual use was three months (i.e. ¼ of a year), so the interest would be $500.00, plus the balance due on the copier. Right?

Wrong. For equipment leases: After the lease is signed the full amount of interest for the full term is due. (You want to re-read that?). This means the leasing company will say to you (roughly): “Sure you can pay off the lease early. The balance due is $18,000.00 (that is, the same amount as if you had used the leasing company’s money for the entire three years.

The effective interest rate? ($6,000 in interest for three months equals $6,000.00 times four quarters equals $24,000.00 in interest for the use of the $12,000.00,) an effective interest rate of 200%! (I hasten to add that not every lease may be like this and that I am not a mathematician, so my apologies if the form and fact of my calculations are not exactly correct. But, the legal conclusion is correct: With this kind of lease you can really get screwed (“screwed” of course being a legal term of art meaning “not a real good deal.”)

I had a client who was a Howard Hughes heir and could have borrowed money at 5%. But, he was stuck with a 53% early pay off rate until his big guns discovered the lender was underpaying its lender by mis-stating the terms of the lease – a different issue entirely. But, this took a client whose advisors fly in and out in Lear jets. Most of us do not have that kind of clout.
6. Forgetting about Credit Card Machines.

A variation of the above is the credit card machine that you will need for your business. Here, again you may have a lease like the one above. So, you need to be aware of its terms. But you may also have some other things, like:

A. A disappearing broker and

B. A failure to remember this little piece of equipment.

As you may know, credit card business advisors are as “thick as flies” when they want you to sign up with their company and use their program. But, later when you have a problem, the guy you talked to may be long gone – the company you talked to may be gone. Who’s left? Who remains is the lender who financed the credit card processing equipment and receives the monthly check for same.

What sometimes happens is that, if the business closes, or is sold, no one remembers the fact and existence of that humble credit card processing machine; it may not even be mentioned in the purchase/sale documents between subsequent owners. But, the lease goes on. And, often such leases are personally guaranteed. So, if it happens (as it does) that the business closes and the premises “go dark,” the lease liability is still there and increasing. It may even relate back to a previous owner or guarantor who has not been around for years and did not in fact cause the breach but who is still legally responsible for it.1 So, what you have is a legal claim, arguments about responsibility and real money spent on attorneys fees that seems surreal in that it relates to “nothing.”

This may be more a case of aggravation than money, but the parties tend to be genuinely angry – even more so in some larger, more important cases.
7. Forgetting about Zoning: The “Shady” or Willfully Blind Seller or Landlord.

This firm does not practice all forms of real estate law, but occasionally we wind up with real estate law issues relating to the operation of a business. Two examples of this come to mind:

A. The house which the seller sells as a business and says is zoned as such, but it isn’t. And,

B. The premises leased to a business for a purpose which is stated in the lease (so the seller knows the purpose) but for which purpose the property is not properly zoned.

The result in either of these scenarios is that, unless the business buyer or tenant is careful in its due diligence going in and/or hires legal counsel to look into such matters beforehand, the buyer may be in the terrible “Catch 22” of needing the business open to pay the bank or landlord,2 but not being able to open the business until the zoning issue is cured. And, frequently this leads to the second “Catch 22” of not having the money to hire zoning lawyers and/or contractors to fix the zoning defect without having the business open (which the City has ordered closed due to the defect.).

What can happen? The lender (or seller if the seller carries back the loan, e.g. under a contract for sale) or landlord will probably sue you for the balance due. So, you not only lose the business and your investment in the business, but you may owe the loan amount or lease as well. This amount, of course, can be hundreds of thousands of dollars. (With a contract for sale or lease the seller or landlord has a duty to mitigate damages but this will require legal representation and possibly a lawsuit to resolve.

So, this would obviously be a case of things not going well.

Moral of the story: Be sure the intended purpose of the business is lawful for you and for the premises.

1 Guarantees are nasty: they can live past this loan to attach to the next loan at the bank. Or, if never revoked, one may face suit 15 years and hundreds of thousands of dollars in breach later. I have had it happen.

2 One of the “landmines” of a lease can be that the tenant must fix the building to conform to zoning. This firm attempts to strike or modify such clauses.

8. Not Knowing the Difference Between an Asset Sale or a Stock (or LLC Membership Interest) Sale.

An easy way to sell a business is to just sell the “bowl,” i.e. the entity that I referred to in example #1 above. But, generally, this is not a good idea because the buyer has no way of knowing -- and sometimes the selling stock or interest owner(s) does not even know -- about undeclared (by the IRS) tax liability, e.g. 941 payroll taxes.

First, some general principles of applicable law:

A. Business owners are personally liable for unpaid payroll taxes.

B. Such liability is typically not dischargeable by the business in bankruptcy, and

C. Such personal liability for which the business owner is vicariously liable as a matter of law is typically not dischargeable in bankruptcy.

Legal result: You’re “screwed” (see definition above).

As I implied above, sometimes even the business and the business owners do not know of the tax claim. The reason for this is that such claims tend to arise a few years after they IRS says they arose. They are what in law we might call “springing claims,” that is, they come out of nowhere, years after the fact. For example, the typical IRS Notice and letter might say that you failed to pay $13,200.00 for the second quarter of 2007, so now with principal and interest you owe $32,000.00! (This may be an exaggeration but not by much). For many businesses the actual numbers could be much larger.

(Moral of the story: Undisclosed tax liabilities can be a business “giant killer.”)

So usually we at least discuss this point before doing a stock purchase transaction. Lawyers often like asset purchase/sale agreements under which only the “contents of the bowl” are sold, but sometimes tax considerations raised by the accountant will be important as well.

Second moral: Get advice from an accountant and lawyer, not just one or the other.

{(I do not mean to pick on accountants but because they often focus on taxes and tax preparation only, their advice may not address liability issues. Note: Lawsuits can cost more than taxes. Unless you have been in litigation, you may have no idea.)}
9. Calling Employees “Independent Contractors” to Avoid Payroll Tax.

Many small business owners must drink from the same well of logic or advice when it comes to treating their employees as independent contractors. The logic seems to be something like this: Collecting payroll taxes, including state and federal income taxes, insurance and unemployment tax and social security, is expensive (because we have to match some of same) and because we have to pay someone to keep the books and do the paperwork, so let’s just skip all that and call the employee an “independent contractor.” OK?

This topic could be an essay in itself, but in this short version know two things:

A. Generally, someone is not an independent contractor unless they have their own clients. It is not just where they work and who controls the work, the common test. And, if they have their own clients then they should have a name, location, LLC, business license, tax ID number. You get the idea. In other words they would be to you like this law firm would be to you – independent.

B. The first disgruntled employee that calls the labor board or IRS, saying I wasn’t really an independent contractor – is going to trigger an audit of every employee and contractor you ever had. And, the disgruntled employee who triggered the audit may say: “By the way I think I/we worked 60 hours a week.” So, you face a claim per employee of say $10,000.00 to $100,000.00. Worse, many attorneys will take the case on contingency because wage claims are favored by the law and some claims have punitive damages and/or mandatory attorneys fees.

Moral of the story: Calling an employee an independent contractor gives that employee the power to destroy you. They hold the switch to a nuclear bomb – and you gave it to them. So, like the doctor says when you say it hurts to raise your arm: “Don’t do that.”

10. Not Having a Non-Compete Agreement with Your Key Employees.

Public policy favors the employee’s right to work in the field of his or her training or choice. We do not want doctors working at Starbucks because they signed a non-compete agreement. But, when it comes to confidential information or customers and employees, the public policy switches to favor the business. Trade secrets are protected by most state statutes, provided that you treat the information as confidential by having it password protected or under lock and key – or at least saying so and perhaps stamping it as “Confidential.” But, if you want to keep your customers and employees, then the burden is on you to prevent the departing employee(s) from soliciting and diverting same away from your business.

Again, this could be a long story, but under this short version, the way to do this is by a well drafted according to the laws of your state) Non-Competition and Confidentiality Agreement. Ideally, depending on the state, this agreement will prevent the employee from “two-timing” while working for you and prevent them from doing business with your customers or hiring your employees for a period, say, one year after leaving your employ.

Sometimes, the employee can even be prohibited from working in the same industry or for a major competitor for a short period. This can be very advantageous because it can keep your employee from going to work for your competitor. And, the future employer may face a legal claim by you if they allow the employee to breach your Agreement by hiring that person.

Usually, the employee is willing and able to do the most damage to your company right after he or she leaves, so a “restrictive period” can be very favorable to your business. But again, the only way to get this restrictive period is a well-drafted employment agreement. Because, in the old days, most such agreements were not reasonable in terms of territory or term they were junk and could be ignored. But, these days, employers – and their lawyers – have got religion; so, the agreement stands a good chance of being enforced. And, the difference can be huge. For example, one of my printing company clients lost $1,116,000.00 in six months when his key employee left and went after “her” (really the company’s) clients. This firm charges a $1,000.00 or so for a complete employment agreement. $1,000 versus $1,000,000.00:
You decide.

(Moral of the story: Have your key employees sign a non-compete agreement.)

CONCLUSION

(Moral of morals: Be diligent, knowledgeable and wise. Owning a business is not for the fainthearted, nor for the lazy, ignorant and tight. Use a business lawyer for these organizational issues.3 The cost is minimal and the benefits are huge.)

As a Phoenix collection lawyer I know says: “If I am not collecting for ya, I may be collecting from ya.”
I would paraphrase this to say: “If I am not working for your business, I may be working against your business.” And, in the latter case you better be damn sure your organizational documents – what I call the “legal brick house” – are in order.

Have a comment on this article?  Email Us: TheFirm@azbuslaw.com
__________________________________________________________________________________________

Donald W. Hudspeth was a business owner before he became an attorney. Don owned a chain of businesses in Kansas and Arizona before attending law school at age 36. A 1988 graduate of The Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law at Arizona State University, Don has more than twenty years experience practicing corporate and business law. After working for a large firm representing corporate clients, Don founded the Law Offices of Donald W. Hudspeth, P.C. in 1993 with the motto “The Business of our Firm is Business.” The firm’s practice areas are business law and commercial litigation: from entity formation and business planning to business dissolution and disputes resolution, and all the transactions in between, including intellectual property - trademarks and copyrights, contracts – non-compete and purchase/sale agreements, mergers and acquisitions and franchises.
Don taught business law at Arizona State University and American Institute; has conducted classes and given lectures at a number of educational institutions and business organizations, including the Edson Institute at Arizona State University, Phoenix College, the Maricopa Community Colleges Small Business Development Center and the Arizona Small Business Association.

Among articles and books, Don authored:
  • Getting Past Thompson v. Harris, A New Standard of Constructive
  • Eviction in Arizona, 1997, Arizona Attorney Magazine; Inside the Firm: The Inside Story Of Choosing and
  • Using a Lawyer, 1999 (copy purchased by Langdell Hall, Harvard Law Library) and most recently.....
  • Minding Your Own Business, Ropes to Skip and Ropes to Know In the Operation of Your Small Business, 2010.
***

A Checklist of Reasons to Start Your Own Business

A Checklist of Reasons to Start Your Own Business

By Donald W. Hudspeth

Here is a list of reasons why I started my own business and why you may want to start your own small business:

1.  Employment:  It’s a job.¹ Owning your own business is a means of employment. And, if you don’t like your boss, then you have problems outside of the business. Starting a business as a means of employment might be a good move for veterans, retirees, new grads, and the unemployed or under-employed workers who need to create their own job.²
Getting off the couch and “into the world” can be a powerful motivator to succeed, particularly for those with an entrepreneurial bent.  Of course, owning your own business may be a job that does not pay any money, but if you have no job right now, at least it provides the possibility of money, all-important experience, and may create hope. (Often, hope is what keeps us going.)

2. Experience and resume builder: Self-employment can provide valuable experience in the school of “hard knocks.” Win or lose, you should learn something you can use.  And, owning a business can help fill a gap in employment on your resume if you decide to go back into the job market.  And, if you are successful, you may not want to go back. Note: Having owned a business is not a positive with some employers when you are searching for job. Whether it is or not may depend on whether the company values self-starters, or fears management and control issues arising from someone who has been “independent” and may chafe at towing the company line.

3. Schedule: You can set your own schedule.  You may be in “jail with the keys,” but at least it’s your jail and your keys.  For example, if you have kids, a spouse or other loved one, or have an odd or demanding schedule, being able to set your own hours can be the difference between a healthy relationship or not, and income or not.  As your own boss you can work on or off site when you want, and also work odd hours if you want.

4. Self-Determination and Self Actualization: Being in business gives you the right to be yourself and to choose who you want to be and who you want to deal with.  But, owning your own business can be a challenge. In fact, I often joke that a primary requirement of starting and succeeding in business is ignorance, because if you knew going in what you were getting yourself into, and the obstacles you would face, you might not start.  Still, a job well-done is fulfilling and that can make life worth living.  Emotional investment determines the value of things to us.  And, spiritually, being paid for serving others and actualizing the “God within you” can add another level of satisfaction and happiness.  And, one doesn’t really need to be religious to feel this way; psychologically it is a form of self-actualization.

¹Normally, this factor would not be number one on this list of reasons to start a business, but I have listed it as #1 for now due to the bad economy and terrible job market at the time of this article. 
²It may also aid in immigration. Although my firm does not practice immigration law we occasionally represent clients who seek to immigrate to the U.S. and use their business ownership as a means to do so. There is a story, perhaps apocryphal, that when Hong Kong reverted to Chinese rule, its citizens fled to Vancouver Canada and that generally the policy was that if you had $750,000, then welcome to Canada!

The Law Offices of Donald W. Hudspeth, P.C.
Business Law, Commercial Litigation & International Business Law
www.AZBUSLAW.com - 602.265.7997- TheFirm@azbuslaw.com
"The Business of Our Firm is Business"

06 May 2011

A New Standard of Constructive Eviction in Arizona: Getting Past Thompson v. Harris

Included into Arizona Attorney Magazine
by Don Hudspeth

In 1969 the Arizona Court of Appeals decided Thompson v Harris.1 Thompson the famous (or infamous) welding shop case, dramatically illustrates the traditional rule that a landlord has no duty to one tenant to correct the nuisance activities of another. Put more legalistically the case holds that a "landlord's obligation under a covenant of quiet enjoyment ... does not extend to acts of other tenants or third parties unless such acts are performed on behalf of the landlord or by one claiming paramount title.''2
The facts of Thompson are roughly as follows: In 1962, Thompson leased space for the Longbranch Bar,

Thompson complained to Harris, who spoke to the welding shop proprietor about the problem, but neither Harris nor the welding shop took any action to correct the problem. Thompson then deducted money from the rent check to pay for mopping and deodorants. Harris returned the check with a Notice of Termination.

At trial Thompson argued that his failure to pay the rent in full did not breach the lease because Harris had breached the lease by, among other reasons, not acting to cure the problem. Both the trial court and the court of appeals rejected this argument, holding that "the landlord had no duty to prevent the improper use of the wall by another tenant."3

The Evolving Rule of Landlord Duty and Liability

The New Test: Landlord's Power to Act
In Klimkowski v De La Torre,4 the Arizona Court of Appeals held that the landlord has a duty to remedy a dangerous nuisance where it has opportunity to correct the problem due to the expiration and renewal of a month-to-month lease. In Klimkowski the dangerous situation consisted of children playing with cigarette lighters in the vicinity of a storage shed containing large amounts of paint, thinner and tar paper. Automobiles were being dismantled near the shed, and an automobile gas tank was stored half inside and half outside the shed.

On several occasions plaintiff Klimkowski observed the children's behavior and alerted the De La Torre to the situation. However, in spite of this knowledge, Mr. De La Torre continued to rent the property to the tenants on a month-to-month basis without requiring any kind of corrective action. Later, the property caught fire, and several explosions occurred, which spewed burning materials onto the plaintiff and his property.5

The key fact in Klimkowski is that the lease was a month-to-month lease. The significance of that fact is the landlord's right and opportunity to control the nuisance tenant by terminating or not renewing the lease.7 However, any right of termination should provide the landlord with the same right and opportunity to compel the tenant to fix the nuisance or face eviction.

The landlord's opportunity to take corrective action should be deemed to arise not only from his ability to terminate a month-to-month lease, but from any event or situation where the landlord has the right to terminate the lease. Such events would include any default allowing the landlord to terminate the lease. Examples of default would include not only the non-payment of rent, but any material breach, particularly of a provision requiring the tenant to obey all applicable law and refrain from disturbing other tenants. Another situation might be where the nuisance activity occurred before the formal commencement date of the lease.

Naturally, what is noxious or illegal would be defined on a case-by-case basis. Examples of a "noxious" nuisance would be excessive noise, smoke, odor and other forms of noise and air pollution. An "illegal" nuisance would be defined in terms of any applicable law, including municipal ordinances.

Arizona should extend the holding of Klimkowski to cover not only a dangerous nuisance, but also any noxious and illegal nuisance, where the landlord has notice of the problem.8 Arizona should now expressly adopt section 6.1 of the Restatement (Second) of Property (the "Restatement at __ "). The Restatement at 6.1 provides, in relevant part, that, absent some contrary agreement, "there is a breach of the landlord's obligations if, during the period the tenant is entitled to possession of the leased property, the landlord, or someone whose conduct is attributable to him, interferes with a permissible use of the leased property by the tenant."9

Although it was discussing section 837 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts at the time, the Arizona Court of Appeals appears to have implicitly adopted this test in Klimkowski by stating that "[t]he landlord's liability in such cases arises not from any action or inaction on the part of the landlord but rather from the landlord's own failure to eliminate a dangerous condition of which he has knowledge when the leased property comes under his control."10 The Maryland Court of Appeals wrestled with this nuisance tenant issue in Bocchini v. Gorn Management Co. There, the residential landlord, Gorn Management, refused to take any action to stop "unbearable noise" created by an upstairs tenant. The lease contained a clause against excessive noise. The affected tenants, Carol Bocchini and her young daughter, argued that the landlord's lack of action ratified or encouraged the offensive behavior. The management company argued that a landlord cannot be held to have breached a covenant of quiet enjoyment or to have constructively exacted a tenant because of conditions created by another tenant.
In considering this argument, the Maryland court observed that the law in this area "seems to be in a state of flux and disarray."12 On the one hand the court acknowledged a1980 hornbook and a 1955 ALR 2d Annotation in support of the old rule.13 On the other hand, the court observed that a later ALR 4th Annotation and the Restatement (Second) of Property had adopted a different view.14

The Maryland court noted that under comment (d) to section 6.1 of the Restatement, conduct performed on the property by a third party is attributable to the landlord where the "conduct could legally be controlled by him..."15 The Court also cited illustration 11 to comment (d) of section 6.1. Illustration 11 describes a situation where the landlord has the right to terminate the lease for persistent noise, but has refused to do so even after a request by the affected tenant? In that case, under the Restatement, the landlord has breached the covenant of quiet enjoyment and constructively evicted the tenant.17 The material fact, here, is the landlord's "measure of control over the offending tenant."18

Intent or Willfulness Not Required
Under the traditional rule, a finding of the landlord's intent or willfulness to evict was required to find a breach of duty by the landlord or constructive eviction.19 However, the Colorado Court of Appeals in Eskanos and Supperstein v. Irwin, this modified, then eliminated this requirement.20

In Eskanos, Irwin, a shopping center tenant, vacated due to excessive noise created by surrounding tenants.21 The leases contained provisions against noise heard outside the demised premises.22 The Colorado Court of Appeals held that, in such situations, the test for constructive eviction should not be whether less or intended to cause the eviction, but whether the landlord intended "to perform the acts of commission or omission which resulted in a deprivation of use."23 The court stated:
Therefore, we hold that to establish a constructive eviction a lessee need not prove his landlord's intent to work an eviction; rather he need only prove that the acts which deprive him of all or a substantial portion of his leasehold were intentional on the part of the landlord, be they acts of commission or of omission.24
The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts came to a similar conclusion in the consolidated actions of Blackett v. Olanoff.25 There, the landlords, Arthur B. Blackett and others, had introduced a noisy commercial lounge into a pre-existing residential setting.26 Its lease required the lounge to conduct entertainment so that it could not be heard outside the building and would not disturb the apartment residents.

The court found that the landlords had the right "as a matter of law" to control the objectionable noise and that the trial judge was warranted in finding "as a fact that the landlords could control the objectionable conditions."27 The court held that the landlord had constructively evicted the affected tenants because it had created the situation and had the right to control the objectionable conditions.28 The court reasoned that, due to the landlords' actions and omissions, "a clash of tenants' rights was inevitable, if each pressed those rights."29

The court concluded that, because "the disturbing condition was the natural and probable consequence" of the landlords' acts and "because the landlord could control the actions at the lounge," the landlord should not be allowed to collect rent and that the tenants "should not be left only with a claim against the proprietors of the noisomelounge."30

We may conclude, then, that a landlord has the duty to remedy the actions of a nuisance tenant where it has notice of the problem and the right under the lease or otherwise to control the offending tenant. For purposes of determining whether a nuisance has caused constructive eviction, the material acts or omissions in question are those of the landlord, not the offending tenant.

A Traditional Waiver Clause May Not Be Effective

The Landlord's Actions, Not the Tenant's, Are in Question
Most commercial leases contain a "waiver clause" similar to the following: "Landlord shall not be liable for any damages arising from any act or neglect of any other tenant, if any, of the building in which Premises are located." On its face, this clause bars the affected tenant's claim against the landlord for nuisances caused by offending tenants.

However, the clause misses the point. Under the evolving standard, once the landlord has notice of the nuisance and the right to terminate the offending tenant's lease, then the acts or omissions in question are not those of the nuisance tenant but those of the landlord.31

As discussed above, the landlord's right to terminate the nuisance tenant's lease would arise from the breach of any lease covenant. For example, if the lease contained an "anti-nuisance" clause, then under the default and remedies sections of standard leases, the landlord would, or should, have the right to terminate. In Klimkowski, the Arizona Court of Appeals held that a landlord is liable to a third party for a dangerous nuisance where it has the opportunity to correct a tenant nuisance due to the expiration of a month-to-month lease.32 In making this determination, the court looked to the actions of the landlord, not the offensive tenant. The opinion states:
The landlord's liability in such cases arises not from any action or inaction on the part of the tenant but rather from the landlord's own failure to eliminate a dangerous condition of which he has knowledge when the leased property comes under his control.33
Thus, after notice and opportunity to cure, the landlord's acts or omissions are material.
Similarly, a court should find that constructive eviction of a tenant has occurred where the landlord fails to correct another tenant's nuisance after notice and opportunity to cure. This result is consistent with common expectation. A victimized tenant does not expect to sue his neighbor. He calls his landlord.

The landlord is both financially and operationally, in the best position to remedy the situation because it may use the power of the lease to deal with the offensive tenant. Moreover, through common area charges, the landlord may distribute the costs of litigation, if necessary, over a group of tenants for the good of all. This is more practical and fair than expecting one or a few tenants to bear the burden of confrontation and litigation.

The Waiver Clause May Bar Only Claims, Not Defenses
In Barton v. Mitchell Co., the Florida Court of Appeals upheld the defense of constructive eviction even though the lease contained a waiver clause.34 Barton, the affected tenant, operated a retail store selling patio furniture.35 After she was in place for about two years, her landlord, The Mitchell Company, leased the adjacent premises to an exercise studio, Body Electric. Barton's lease entitled her to "peacefully and quietly enjoy the Demised Premises.''36

The exercise studio's lease prohibited audible noise outside its premises.37 Nevertheless, "[l]loud music, screams, shouts and yells" accompanied this operation causing "the walls to vibrate, and a painting to fall off the wall."38

Barton repeatedly complained to the landlord that the noise made it difficult to conduct her business.39 Eventually, after months of continuing promises but no action, Barton vacated the property.

The Mitchell Company sued for the unpaid rent due under the lease. Barton defended on the theory of constructive eviction. In response, the landlord argued that Ms. Barton had waived her right to hold the landlord responsible for the noise and vibration caused by the adjacent exercise studio. The pertinent lease provision read as follows:
Landlord shall not be liable to Tenant or any other person for any damage or injury caused to any person or property by reason of the failure of Landlord to perform any of its covenants or agreements hereunder,...or for any damage arising from acts or negligence of other tenants or occupants of the Shopping Center....40
The Florida District Court of Appeals rejected the landlord's waiver argument and found that constructive eviction had occurred. The court held that the waiver clause applied only to claims, not defenses, and found that "here no one is seeking to sue or impose liability or collect damages from the landlord."41

This decision may reveal a common problem. Many leases contain a standard waiver clause similar to the one in Barton; that is, "landlord shall not be liable for any damages arising from any act or neglect of any other tenant, ...' As such clauses say nothing about the waiver of defenses, they may not bar the affected tenant's defense of constructive eviction²42

To remedy this problem, Arizona landlords may want to revise their leases to state, in substance, the following: "Tenant hereby waives all defenses arising from, and Landlord shall not be liable for any damages arising from, any act or neglect of any other tenant, or from landlord's acts or omissions in enforcing any provision of this lease against another tenant, whether or not the landlord has notice of the offending tenant's disturbing or unlawful act or the opportunity to cure the disturbance by invoking its powers under the lease."

Conclusion
The traditional rule of landlord non-liability for tenant nuisances appears to be under fire, particularly where the problem involves a potentially dangerous nuisance and the landlord can fix the problem by invoking its powers under the lease. This is the lesson of Klimkowski. However, Klimkowski should be extended to cover all forms of tenant-created nuisance, including environmental hazards such as air or noise pollution.

This extension would be good news for tenants, because it would make the law consistent with their expectation in tenant nuisance cases, i.e., of first calling the landlord instead of their lawyer. As a result, landlords would be held to a higher standard.

However, there may be some good news for the landlord here also. Under the traditional rule, the landlord not only had no duty to act, it had no right to act. This limitation of the landlord's rights followed from the centuries-old conception of a lease as a "conveyance" and the tenant as an "owner.''43 Once the landlord's duty is established, there can be no question of its right to police tenants.

Waiver clauses, to be effective, should waive defenses as well as claims and bar claims against the landlord, not only for the acts of third parties or other tenants, but for the acts or omissions of the landlord itself.

Donald W. Hudspeth is a sole practitioner with offices in central Phoenix.

ENDNOTES:
1. 9Ariz. App. 341,452 P.2d 122 (1969).
2. Id. at 345, 452 P.2d at 126. See also Annot., Breach of covenant for a quiet enjoyment in lease, 41 A.L.R.2d 1414 § 22 at 1441) (1955).
3. Id. at 345, 452 P.2d at 126.
4. 175 Ariz. 340, 857 P.2d 392 (App. 1993).
5. Id. at 341, 857 P.2d at 393.
6. Id. at 341, 857 P.2d at 393.
7. See Restatement (Second) of Property, §6.1, comment d, illustration 11 (1977).
8. Indeed, Thompson v. Harris, 9 Ariz. App. 341,452 P.2d 122 (1969) is now 25 years old. Its decision pre-dates many of our modern health and safety laws and the public policy underlying those regulations. Were the case to arise today, with arguments presenting the health and safety issues, the courts might decide the case differently, particularly if the landlord had reason to know of the nuisance before entering the lease or had the opportunity under the lease to correct the problem. However, because Thompson is silent on the issue of landlord's right to act under the lease, extending Klimkowski would not necessarily overrule Thompson.
9. Restatement (Second) of Property @ 6.1, (1977).
10. Klimkowski, 175 Ariz. at 342, 857 P.2d at 394 (citing Bischofhausen v. D. V. Jacquays Mining and Equipment Contractors Co., 145 Ariz. 204, 210, 700 P.2d 902,908 (App. 1985).
11. 515 A.2d 1179 (Md. App. 1986).
12. Id. at 1184.
13. Id.
14. Annotation, Landlord-Tenant: Constructive Eviction by Another Tenant's Conduct, 1 A.L.R.4th 849,859-62 (1980) and Restatement (Second) of Properly § 6.1 (1977).
15. 515 A.2d 1179, 1184 (Md. App. 1986) (emphasis by the court).
16. Illustration 11 reads: "L leases an apartment to T. L leases another apartment of the same building to A. Under the terms of each lease, L reserves the right to terminate the lease if a tenant persists in making noises disturbing to other tenants after being requested to stop the disturbing noises. T complains to L about disturbing noises of A and L refuses to do anything. The noises of A are attributable to L for the purposes of applying the role of this section."
17. Id.
18. Id.
19. See Eskanos and Supperstein v Irwin, 637 P.2d 403, 405-406 (Colo. App. 1981).
20. Id.
21. Id. at 404.
22. Id.
23. Id. at 406.
24. Id. (emphasis added).
25. 358 NE.2d 817, 819-20 (Mass., 1977) (citing Thompson v. Harris for the traditional rule).
26. Id. at 818.
27. Id. at 819.
28. Id. at 819-820.
29. Id. at 820.
30. Id. See also Cohen v. Werner, 378 N.Y.S.2d 868 (App. Div. 1975) (upholding finding of constructive eviction where landlord had ample notice of existing conditions caused by upstairs tenant but did little to abate nuisance).
31. Bocchini, 515 A.2d at 1884; Restatement (second) of Property § 6.1, comment d, illustration 11 (1977); Annotation, 1 A.L.R. 4th 849 (1992); Eskanos, 637 P.2d at 406; Blackett, 358 N.E. 2d at 819-820; Cohen, 85 378 N.Y.S.2d at 868.
32. 175 Ariz. at 340, 857 P.2d at 392. (In Klimkowski, plaintiff was a third party, not a tenant).
33. Id. (cite omitted).
34. 507 So.2d 148 (Fla. App. 4 Dist. 1987).
35. Id.
36. Id. at 149.
37. Id.
38. Id. at 148-49.
39. Id. at 149.
40. Id. at 149 (emphasis added.)
41. Id.
42. In a recent unpublished Decision Order on an accelerated appeal brought by the author under Rule 29, ARCAP, the Arizona Court of Appeals reversed the trial court to find that questions of both law and fact existed under the theory of constructive eviction where the affected tenant alleged noxious and illegal lacquer spraying by an adjoining tenant and the lease required the tenants to obey all applicable law and to avoid disturbing other tenants.
43. 49 AmJur.2d, Landlord and Tenant § 2 (1970).


****