tenant held liable after business is sold

tenant held liable after business is sold

john@e-classifiedad.com (John)	11/15/2004 3:40:20 PM
Hi! Guys, I am renting a retail business space in CA (Los Angeles). I am ok with the rent and the lease options they have on the lease agreement but I am disagree with one of the clause that says that I am liable of all the rents and taxes even if I sold the business(transfer the lease). That means that I am liable for all dues until the lease is over. I do not understand this. Imagine that I work hard 15 hrs a day to build up my business. When I feel like retiring I sold my business to Mr.X. Before selling the business landlord approved Mr.X as a new tenant. Mr. X did not took care of his business and loss much of its customers, now, Mr.X just want to quit. He do not pay the rent and so forth... So in that case I would still be responsible for the rent( as per the lease). This is not right. Why should I held responsible for Mr.X failure. I believe that when I sold the business I should be release of all the liabilities as far as tenant is concerned. I talk to the landlord and they argue that they do not screen the new buyer as they screen me, thats why the original tenant is being help liable. This is really not acceptable. I need some help here guys to convince the landlord. Or does anybody know any provision in state of California not to force the tenant to be held liable for lease after the lease being transferred to new buyer. Any informative links pertaining to my problems will be helpful too. Thanks



Bob Stock	11/16/2004 1:40:00 AM
On 15 Nov 2004 15:40:20 -0800, john@e-classifiedad.com (John) wrote: I am renting a retail business space in CA (Los Angeles). I am ok with the rent and the lease options they have on the lease agreement but I am disagree with one of the clause that says that I am liable of all the rents and taxes even if I sold the business(transfer the lease). That means that I am liable for all dues until the lease is over. I do not understand this. [snip] I talk to the landlord and they argue that they do not screen the new buyer as they screen me, thats why the original tenant is being help liable. Why can't the landlord screen the new tenant in the same way? If it is a cost issue, why don't you offer to pay the cost for screening the new tenant in exchange for changing the lease in the way you wish? ------------------------------ Bob Stock, California Attorney Nothing I've said should be relied on as legal advice. ------------------------------



"Richard"	11/15/2004 8:30:40 PM
John wrote: Hi! Guys, I am renting a retail business space in CA (Los Angeles). I am ok with the rent and the lease options they have on the lease agreement but I am disagree with one of the clause that says that I am liable of all the rents and taxes even if I sold the business(transfer the lease). That means that I am liable for all dues until the lease is over. I do not understand this. Imagine that I work hard 15 hrs a day to build up my business. When I feel like retiring I sold my business to Mr.X. Before selling the business landlord approved Mr.X as a new tenant. Mr. X did not took care of his business and loss much of its customers, now, Mr.X just want to quit. He do not pay the rent and so forth... So in that case I would still be responsible for the rent( as per the lease). This is not right. Why should I held responsible for Mr.X failure. I believe that when I sold the business I should be release of all the liabilities as far as tenant is concerned. I talk to the landlord and they argue that they do not screen the new buyer as they screen me, thats why the original tenant is being help liable. This is really not acceptable. I need some help here guys to convince the landlord. Or does anybody know any provision in state of California not to force the tenant to be held liable for lease after the lease being transferred to new buyer. Any informative links pertaining to my problems will be helpful too. Thanks For legal advice, hire an attorney. Newsgroups are for discussion only. This is purely my opinion. In a manner of speaking the landlord is correct. You have sold the business, not the rights to the space it occupies. The new owner of the business can take what is his and move out and you wind up with an empty space to pay for. What I would do is draw up an agreement, with an attorney, and have the landlord sign it. That agreement would stipulate that if and when you decide to sell the business, the new owner takes over any and all responsibilities for rent, taxes, and what ever else you had to do. By all means, talk to an attorney about this clause.



	11/15/2004 10:49:24 PM
I am renting a retail business space in CA (Los Angeles). I am ok with the rent and the lease options they have on the lease agreement but I am disagree with one of the clause that says that I am liable of all the rents and taxes even if I sold the business(transfer the lease). That means that I am liable for all dues until the lease is over. I do not understand this. I've sold some restaurants that had that standard clause in the lease. In each case the new owner has renegotiated the lease with the landlord (at a higher rate that I was paying) before the close of the sale. It has not been a problem. The landlord get a good tenant and gets to increase the rent (to market rates). Good luck, Dave



john@e-classifiedad.com (John)	11/16/2004 9:01:23 AM
<hinojo_b@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:<pMemd.16855$WC6.12823@bignews3.bellsouth.net>... I am renting a retail business space in CA (Los Angeles). I am ok with the rent and the lease options they have on the lease agreement but I am disagree with one of the clause that says that I am liable of all the rents and taxes even if I sold the business(transfer the lease). That means that I am liable for all dues until the lease is over. I do not understand this. I've sold some restaurants that had that standard clause in the lease. In each case the new owner has renegotiated the lease with the landlord (at a higher rate that I was paying) before the close of the sale. It has not been a problem. The landlord get a good tenant and gets to increase the rent (to market rates). Good luck, Dave Thats good, but what if the new tenant back out in the middle of the lease. What would you have done?



"David Martel"	11/16/2004 6:17:51 PM
John, I think you missed Dave's point. He has sold businesses and as part of the sale the new owner obtained a new lease. I presume that this lease is not a sub-lease and that the old owner's lease was cancelled. So, if the new tenant defaults the landlord can not pursue the seller since the seller does not have a lease or have other obligations with the building owner. Dave M.



"Richard"	11/19/2004 1:15:39 AM
John wrote: <hinojo_b@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:<pMemd.16855$WC6.12823@bignews3.bellsouth.net>... I am renting a retail business space in CA (Los Angeles). I am ok with the rent and the lease options they have on the lease agreement but I am disagree with one of the clause that says that I am liable of all the rents and taxes even if I sold the business(transfer the lease). That means that I am liable for all dues until the lease is over. I do not understand this. Thats good, but what if the new tenant back out in the middle of the lease. What would you have done? John Smith has a building he leases to Jack Squat. Jack decides to sell the business. What Jack needs to do is to make clear to the new owner of the business, that he is totally 100% responsible for the rent and taxes due on the space, not just the business. If the new owner skips out, Jack isn't left in the middle with the debts. Of course, John would have to be a party to this agreement. What Jack doesn't want, is to be summoned to court 3 years later because the new owner skipped and hadn't paid the taxes and/or rent.

Report this post for offensive content