I have litigated commercial leases since before PC’s were a common lawyer’s tool. During that period, one issue seems to always find its way onto my docket – how to interpret and apply the typical repair and maintenance clause.
Most commercial leases, at least those that give the tenant exclusive possession of the leased premises, burden the tenant with repair and maintenance obligations during the lease-term. Most of those leases tend to characterize the tenant’s obligation as one to “keep the premises in repair and good condition, normal wear and tear excepted.” An innocuous little phrase to be sure, and one that seems to serve its intended purpose fairly well since it, and versions similar to it, are so often found in the boiler-plate. So if the obligation is so clear and harmless, why is it so frequently a matter of lengthy and costly disputes?
My personal view is that landlord’s and tenant’s alike tend to view this type of clause as one expressing a mutual interest. The assumption being that, throughout the lease-term, the tenant’s interests are best served by maintaining its work space, office, warehouse, or what have you. This interest, when carried out, also tends to benefit the landlord for obvious reasons. Because of this “you scratch my back, and I’ll scratch yours” attitude about repairs and maintenance, not much thought is put into this otherwise common obligation.
This, however, is the transactional view at the time of closing, not the litigator’s view when a dispute arises. When a dispute arises the 13 innocuous words in the common repair and maintenance clause have the capacity to stir trouble you can hardly believe.
These disputes do not necessarily arise only at the conclusion of the lease, when a landlord is taking stock of what is being left as the tenant is moving out. Those 13 words can, and do, create ongoing obligations throughout the lease-term and, trust me when I say this, landlords and tenants frequently are at odds as to what repair and maintenance actually means, what it includes and doesn’t, how much it should costs, how frequently it must be addressed and – perhaps this is the biggest question mark – what does normal wear and tear mean and what, if anything, does it excuse during the term.
There is not time and space to address each of these issues in a mere blog post. Suffice it to say, however, that if just a little bit of time and attention was paid explaining the scope of a tenant’s repair/maintenance obligation, in clear and simple terms, I might not have spent a career litigating those claims and my clients might have saved considerable time, untold aggravations, and so much money that I long ago lost count.
This issue is a close cousin to the problem of lease ambiguity I have commented on in the past. And I’m not suggesting that to “fix” the problem it is necessary to “lawyer up” every section of your lease. To the contrary, I am suggesting that adding some plain and simple language to your repair and maintenance clause might avoid “lawyering up” at all.
Matthew J. Boettcher is a partner in the firm’s Bloomfield Hills office and Co-leader of Plunkett Cooney’s Commercial Litigation Practice Group. He concentrates his practice in the area of commercial litigation with ...
Add a comment
SubscribeRSS Plunkett Cooney LinkedIn Page Plunkett Cooney Twitter Page Plunkett Cooney Facebook Page
- Commercial Liability
- Business Risk Management
- Business Torts
- Commercial Real Estate
- Real Estate
- Civil Litigation
- Real Estate Mortgages
- Commercial Leasing
- Commercial Loans
- Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)
- Mortgage Foreclosure
- Shareholder Liability
- Tax Law
- Class Action
- Product Liability
- Fraud Activity
- Risk Management
- Cyber Attack
- Biometric Data
- Banking Law
- Statute of Limitations
- Internet Law
- Non-compete Agreements
- Consumer Protection
- Residential Liability
- Zoning and Planning
- Department of Education (DOE)
- Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
- Fair Credit Reporting Act
- Unfair Competition
- Uniform Commercial Code (UCC)
- Proliferation of Security Cameras, Drones Doesn't Necessarily Reduce Reasonable Expectation of Privacy Under the Law
- Does Sympathy or Empathy Have a Place in the Courtroom?
- No Light Yet at End of COVID-19 Real Estate Tunnel
- When are Clear, Unambiguous Contracts Nonetheless Ambiguous?
- What the Future may Hold for Michigan Real Estate Foreclosures and Evictions
- The Dispute Subject to Arbitration, or is it? Who Decides?
- Illinois Supreme Court Slams Courthouse Door on Non-residents' Product Liability Claims Against Non-resident Defendants for Injuries Suffered Outside State
- Supreme Court Rules Fully Funded Pension Plans Cannot be Sued Under ERISA for Mismanagement
- A Day in Someone Else’s Shoes: Can Mortgagees Challenge Ad Valorem Assessments?
- Landlords may be able to Recover Future Damages Even After Tenants Vacate Leased Premises