All Forum Posts by: Michael W.

A woman wants to lease a retail unit in a building I manage. She will be running the business exclusively. However, She said that she's building up her credit and that only her husband will be signing the lease. I ran a background check on the husband, which was satisfactory. Should I require her to undergo a background check and to sign the lease as well? My feeling that everyone who has an ownership interest in the business must sign the lease. Thoughts?

Thanks for the input, guys.

Kevin, you made some good points. But in this case, the tenant would still be applying as an individual, but his business partner would be a co-applicant/co-lessee. There is no LLC or other legal entity afaik who would be named as the applicant/lessee.

Theresa, I'm thinking the same...he came to me again on his own, this time with his business partner, who wasn't part of the business when the agent contacted me.

Either way, if I go forward, I think it would make sense to inform the agent in advance just to make sure he won't try to claim a commission afterwards. 

Thank you. 

I have a vacant unit in a strip mall that I'm trying to lease out. A prospective tenant contacted me, however he couldn't provide proof of sufficient income, so I declined.

A couple of weeks later, a leasing agent contacted me, stating that he has a client who may be interested in the unit. It turns out that it's the same guy. I told the agent why I previously rejected his client and told him that I still wasn't interested.

The following week, the prospective tenant contacted me again, directly. He supposedly now has a business partner with a strong financial background who will cosign a lease. Since he and I had been in contact before he began working with the agent, if I now want to lease to him, would I be obligated to pay a lease commission to the agent? There is no agency agreement.

This is my first time evicting a tenant. This relates to a commercial (retail) building in CA.

On 11/6, I served a delinquent tenant with a  3-day notice to pay or quit. Tenant requested that I give him until 12/15 to pay back rent and late fees, which I agreed to. However, on November 15, I served a 30-day notice to vacate and told him that if he paid everything he owed by 12/15, I might void the notice to vacate. 

The 3-day and 30-day notices were served (substitute service) on his business partner (the store manager who is not named on the lease) rather than the leaseholder, who was absent both times. For the 3-day notice, a separate copy was mailed to the leaseholder at the tenant's business address, but this wasn't done for the 30-day notice. I completed a Proof of Service form for both notices.

Is the 3-day notice still valid and I can go ahead and file an UD complaint using it as proof of service? Or is it considered to be "overridden" by the 30 day-notice that was later served, which could be ruled invalid since I did not mail a separate copy to tenant?

Tenant failed to pay by the 12/15 deadline and I now wish to file a UD complaint. However, the leaseholder is claiming that he never received any notices. I told him they were served on his partner. As long as I have a completed Proof of Service form, will any claim that he was never served be rejected by the court?

He also agreed to pay 50% of the back rent. Is there any downside to accepting a partial rent payment after serving a notice to pay or quit but before an unlawful detainer has been filed?

Thanks for the input, guys.

It's a bit of an awkward situation because the tenant was a friend of my late father's. But I know I have to strictly follow the lease terms, not just for this tenant, but to avoid appearing overly flexible to other tenants.

I think the 30 day notice makes sense in this case.

I recently assumed management duties for a strip mall owned by the family. There is a long term tenant who owes about $10k in back rent, which the former manager allowed to accumulate. Although the tenant is staying current with ongoing rent, she is unable or unwilling to pay off the delinquent balance. If she paid this off, I would have no problem keeping her as a tenant.

What's the best way to handle this situation? Would it make sense to sue her for the back rent without evicting her, or perhaps giving her a 30 day notice (as opposed to a three day notice) to get her act together? I've given her a six month repayment schedule which she agreed to, but has not complied with. She appears to have furniture, fixtures and equipment in the unit which could cover a good deal of the delinquent balance, if sold.

I think it would be better to lease the unit to a different type of business. Leasing to the second store would hurt the first one and would reduce the diversity of the tenant mix. Plus, I think I can fill the vacancy quickly, leasing it to one of the other interested parties. Like I said, hopefully he'll agree to cancel. If he doesn't, I may have to honor the lease, instead of paying the legal fees involved to contest it.

I was thinking it may be necessary to rescind the agreement if the tenant insists on moving in, which he may have a right to do since the lease was signed by both parties. I did not deposit his check however, so it might not be considered a binding contract (no consideration was accepted). I'll consult with a lawyer if the need arises.

I manage a retail building with five units. Recently, there were two vacancies. One unit was leased to a vintage clothing store. A month later, another clothing store was interested in leasing the second unit, two doors down. I mentioned this to the co-owner of the existing store. We felt that the second store has a somewhat different target market, so it shouldn't be a problem having them both as tenants. The co-owner said he wouldn't have a problem with it. He told the other co-owner and they didn't contact me to express any objection.

Two days later, the second clothing store signed a lease and paid a deposit. I introduced the owner to the other tenants, including the owners of the original clothing store. This time, the second co-owner was there. Turns out he's the numbers guy and principal investor, whereas the guy I spoke with before is the store manager/sweat equity partner. He strongly objected to the new tenant moving in, feeling they would be a direct competitor who will dilute their business and ROI. The new tenant wants to move in and isn't concerned about the competition, but he did appreciate the other store owner's pov.

All said, I think it's best that I try to rescind the lease before they move in. Although the lease was signed by both parties, I haven't deposited the check he gave me. Hopefully the owner will agree to cancel the agreement and we'll move on. This would be fair to the original store's owners. Furthermore if the new store were to move in, over 30% of GLA will be clothing, which is rather high.

However, he wouldn't take back the check when I tried to give it to him, which concerns me a bit. He's weighing his options. Legally, can I unilaterally cancel/rescind the lease prior to the lease commencement date? If I try to do so, what recourse if any, would he have?

Of course, the other view is, it's purely a business decision. Competition is everywhere and the old tenant will just have to deal with it. If I pass on this new tenant, there's no telling how long it'll take to find an equally good tenant. There was nothing in the original store's lease prohibiting me from renting to competing tenants. Thanks in advance for any thoughts/opinions.