Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Cause I gotta beauty for ya, right here.
The New York Times reports that real estate developers have made such a visually appealing $80 million alteration to the facade and entrance of 112 West 34th Street in Manhattan that they are candidates for a prestigious development award.
The problem: they are tenants, not owners of the building, and the 1963 lease that the then-owners and then-tenants signed (both current owners and tenants are assignees) provides that the tenants must get prior written approval from the owner before making structural changes worth more than $100,000. As a result, the owner wants the lease terminated and the tenants out. The lease isn't supposed to expire until 2077.
Why on earth would a landlord object to a tenant making -- at its own expense -- $80 million dollars worth of awarding-winning improvements to a property, you ask?
Because the lease provides that the annual rent for the property is $840,000 per year. This, for a 26-story building that sits across from Macy's. This, for a building the tenants lease out to office and retail tenants for many, many times that sum.
So are the owners being unfairly opportunistic in trying to terminate a lease so they can capture the building's increase in market value? Or are the tenants being hypocritical in arguing that a literal reading of the lease applies to the rent, but not the alterations clause? How will a court likely decide the issue and why, or is it more likely that a market solution will be found, and how?
Life doesn't throw perfect hypotheticals at us very often. Take it!
Mark A. Edwards
[comments are held for approval, so there will be some delay in posting]