It
is hardly unusual for tenants to require special licenses to conduct their
business, in addition to Certificates of Occupancy and zoning compliance. Bars
need liquor licenses from the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission. Banks need
licenses from the Texas Department of Banking or similar federal authority.
Racetracks require licenses from The Texas Racing Commission. Chiropractors
must have licensure from the Texas Board of Chiropractic Examiners.
And
so on for surveyors, architects, physicians, veterinarians, engineers, lawyers,
dentists, accountants, brokers, medical facilities, pest eradication companies,
repair shops using oil or hazardous substances, fuel dispensing, etc.
But
what happens when the tenant signs the Lease, and then is unable to secure the
license? What if the tenant doesn’t try [very hard] – should the tenant be excused?
Bre
Mariner Conway Crossings, LLC, as Landlord, entered into a five-year commercial
Lease with Genuinely Loving Childcare, LLC, as tenant. The Lease provided that
tenant could use the premises solely for the purpose of operating a child day
care center for up to 35 pre-school children.
The
target space consisted of 2800 SF in an Orlando shopping center. The Lease
further provided that the tenant must use its best efforts to keep the children
inside the premises and prevent them from loitering in the common areas.
In
Florida, the operation of a child care center that cares for more than five
children requires licensure from the Department of Children and Families. The
Florida legislature has set minimum standards for licensure, including that the
child care center must have at least 45 SF of outdoor play area per child.
Drop-in childcare and urban child care centers are exempt.
The
urban child care center designation which permits the substitution of indoor
play space for outdoor play area, requires written documentation from the local
governing body that the area where the child care center is located has been
declared urban.
Evidently
the Lease was signed at the end of 2013 or beginning of 2014. In January 2014
the Florida Department of Children and Families denied tenant a permanent
license because the Department did not believe the child care center was
located in an urban area. The Department did, however offer a provisional
license with the understanding that an outdoor play area would be required for
permanent licensure.
Using
the provisional license, Tenant opened the child care center in February 2014.
Unable to obtain a permanent license, tenant abandoned the premises in February
2015, only one year into a five-year commercial lease term, when tenant’s
provisional license expired and no further renewals were permitted by operation
of Florida law.
The
landlord sued Genuinely Loving Childcare, LLC and its Guarantors, and obtained
a judgment in trial court for eviction and damages. Tenant appealed the damages
portion of the award.
The
Appellate Court reviewed the evidence and tenant’s affirmative defenses of: (a)
impossibility; (b) impracticality; and (c) frustration of purpose. The thread
that connects them all is foreseeability at the inception of the Lease. The
Court determined that “if a risk was foreseeable at the inception of the lease,
then there exists an inference that the risk was either allocated by the
contract or was assumed by the party.”
Landlord
used that argument to Landlord’s benefit, stating that tenant’s defenses are
insufficient because the risk tenant would not obtain a license was foreseen
and allocated by the Lease to tenant. However, the Court concluded that the Lease provisions did not explicitly
allocate the risk that the Department of Children and Families would deny
tenant the urban designation and a permanent license without outdoor play
space.
Due
to a Lease that is ambiguous on this point, the Appellate Court reversed the
final Judgment and dispatched the case to the lower court to determine the
intent of the parties regarding the licensure issue.
See Genuinely
Loving Childcare, LLC vs. Bre Mariner Crossings, LLC, Case No. 5D15-4168,
District Court of Appeal of Florida, 5th District, January 13, 2017:
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9889607525199014198&q=genuinely+loving+childcare+v.+bre+mariner&hl=en&as_sdt=6,44&as_vis=1.
Lessons
learned:
1. Failure
to explicitly allocate the risk of licensure is a common problem in commercial
leasing. If a tenant is unable to secure its license, it might assert a
position of “frustration of purpose,”
meaning that if the tenant cannot open or continue its business due to matters
outside of its control, perhaps it should not remain liable for lease
obligations.
2. Landlords,
conversely, may insist that Landlord was not operating the business inside the
four walls. It’s tenant’s business and there is no one better than tenant to
process the applications, overcome objections and secure necessary licensure.
3. The
B/L: In your Lease Agreements provide for not only how the premises will be
used, but if it is subject to special licensure to be obtained by tenant and
tenant is unable to obtain the license, or perhaps tenant secures the license
but not for the duration of the lease term, then also state what happens in
those circumstances too. Does the tenant remain liable? For the full remainder
of the term? Is there an exit strategy for the tenant where it can terminate
the Lease by payment of a set amount?
Stuart A. Lautin, Esq.*
Reprinted with
the permission of North Texas Commercial Association of REALTORS®, Inc.
