What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Tennessee, USA
I do have a lawyer looking at this, but I'd like your opinion as well.
We recently completed a 5-year commercial building lease and then did an addendum for another 5 years at an adjacent building, which we moved into May 1. In the new addendum, we asked for a clause explicitly allowing us to park a box truck in a certain spot, which resulted in:
1. Parking. Due to the need to keep travel lanes open for other tenants, other than passenger vehicle parking in designated parking areas and truck parking next to the Premises in the rear, Tenant may park one (1) commercial truck parallel and adjacent to the rear fence of the Center, directly behind the Premises. A violation of this provision shall be deemed a default under the Lease without notice or cure period.
Note: my fault for failing to catch and remove the "without notice or cure period" bit. However, the original lease has a clause that's at odds with the "without notice" bit giving Tenant 3 days to address any default conditions, though I get that an addendum supercedes the original.
Anyway, we've on occasion parked two vans there rather than one big truck, but the total footprint of two vans is about the same as the big truck and in no way impedes travel lanes.
So I just received a letter from the landlord's lawyer citing a violation of the parking clause, declaring a default and termination of the lease effective immediately and demanding we vacate. Note: this is their first communication to us about this issue.
Now, we're going to respond with two offers. One, we'll make sure we only park one vehicle there from now one if they'll withdraw the default claim. Or two, we'll actually accept the lease termination and vacate within 30 days if they'll agree to waive all future rents due as per the default section of the contract, such as if they fail to lease it again for some time, etc.
So, my question to you: Given that they can't show any actual harm from our parking violation, and that we immediately offered to prevent future violations, and that we also offered to let them out of the lease free and clear if that's what they're really after (we're pretty sure it is), is there a significant chance that a judge could find us in default and still on the hook for rents they can't recover from future tenants?
In other words, that clause explicitly states its purpose (travel lanes), said purpose hasn't been violated, and we're 1 month into a 65 month lease offering multiple solutions. Can I actually be on the hook for 5 years of rent for parking in the wrong place a couple times?
I do have a lawyer looking at this, but I'd like your opinion as well.
We recently completed a 5-year commercial building lease and then did an addendum for another 5 years at an adjacent building, which we moved into May 1. In the new addendum, we asked for a clause explicitly allowing us to park a box truck in a certain spot, which resulted in:
1. Parking. Due to the need to keep travel lanes open for other tenants, other than passenger vehicle parking in designated parking areas and truck parking next to the Premises in the rear, Tenant may park one (1) commercial truck parallel and adjacent to the rear fence of the Center, directly behind the Premises. A violation of this provision shall be deemed a default under the Lease without notice or cure period.
Note: my fault for failing to catch and remove the "without notice or cure period" bit. However, the original lease has a clause that's at odds with the "without notice" bit giving Tenant 3 days to address any default conditions, though I get that an addendum supercedes the original.
Anyway, we've on occasion parked two vans there rather than one big truck, but the total footprint of two vans is about the same as the big truck and in no way impedes travel lanes.
So I just received a letter from the landlord's lawyer citing a violation of the parking clause, declaring a default and termination of the lease effective immediately and demanding we vacate. Note: this is their first communication to us about this issue.
Now, we're going to respond with two offers. One, we'll make sure we only park one vehicle there from now one if they'll withdraw the default claim. Or two, we'll actually accept the lease termination and vacate within 30 days if they'll agree to waive all future rents due as per the default section of the contract, such as if they fail to lease it again for some time, etc.
So, my question to you: Given that they can't show any actual harm from our parking violation, and that we immediately offered to prevent future violations, and that we also offered to let them out of the lease free and clear if that's what they're really after (we're pretty sure it is), is there a significant chance that a judge could find us in default and still on the hook for rents they can't recover from future tenants?
In other words, that clause explicitly states its purpose (travel lanes), said purpose hasn't been violated, and we're 1 month into a 65 month lease offering multiple solutions. Can I actually be on the hook for 5 years of rent for parking in the wrong place a couple times?