Q: I am a receiver in two different cases, both of which have problems. I was appointed in a partnership dispute case, where the only asset is a marijuana dispensary. I have been running the dispensary, but because of COVID-19 and the lease obligations; it is not making money. I am also receiver for a bar, owned by an LLC, some of whose members filed an action to dissolve and wind-up the LLC, due to allegations of mismanagement. Because of COVID-19, the bar has been closed and I have not been operating it, although I have possession of it. Both the dispensary and the bar have some valuable assets – licenses, customer lists and personal property. Can I reject the leases in both cases and liquidate the remaining assets for the benefit of creditors and the parties? If so, is there a way to limit the landlords’ claims, which would be quite large?
A: A receiver is not stuck with a receivership entity’s leases just because the receiver has been appointed or has taken possession of the property. The receiver merely has control of the leasehold, as an officer of the court. The receiver is entitled to retain possession for a reasonable period of time to enable him or her to evaluate whether it would be in the best interest of the receivership estate to affirm and adopt the lease or to reject it and return the property to the landlord. H. D. Roosen Company v. Pacific Radio Publishing Company, 123 Cal. App. 525, 534 (1932) (“The mere fact of possession does not, however, obligate the receiver to carry out executory contracts of the debtor”); Irving Trust Co. v. Desmore, 66 F.2d 21, 23 (9th Cir. 1933).
The receiver must pay for the use and occupancy of the property while the receiver decides whether to affirm or reject the lease. At what rate will be discussed below. If the receiver affirms the lease, the receivership estate becomes liable for the rent that comes due under the lease and any other lease liabilities, and the rent obligation becomes an administrative claim. If the receiver rejects the lease and returns possession of the premises to the landlord, receivership law, unlike bankruptcy law, does not require significant payment to the landlord for the remaining term of the lease. The Bankruptcy Code, in general, provides that a landlord’s claim for a lease that has been rejected is limited to the rent reserved by the lease, without acceleration, for the greater of one year, or fifteen percent, not to exceed three years, of the remaining term of the lease, plus any unpaid rent due under the lease as of the date of the filing of the bankruptcy petition or the date the property was surrendered to the landlord, whichever is earlier. 11 U.S.C. § 502 (b)(6).
Receivership law has no such statutory provisions, and the liability of a receivership estate differs depending on the law of the state where the receiver was appointed. The general rule, however, is that the landlord has no claim against the receivership estate. “Where the receiver rejects the lease, there is a difference of opinion as to the provability and allowability against an estate of the lessee in the hands of receiver, of rent reserved but unaccrued. In most instances, such a claim for rent has been denied.” 65 AmJur 2d, Receivers § 209 (2014); Wake Development Co. v. Auburn-Fuller Co., 71 F.2d 702 (9th Cir. 1934). Two general reasons are given for this. The first reason is, because the future rents have not yet accrued, the claim is contingent. Because it may be affected by, among other things, the landlord’s mitigation, the claim cannot be asserted in a receivership.
The other is that, unlike in a bankruptcy case, no discharge is given in a receivership and the lessee can, in theory, still remain liable for the obligations under the lease after the termination of the receivership. This might be bad for the partners in your dispensary case, but maybe not for the members of the LLC who owned the bar, unless they guaranteed the lease. Most of the cases applying California law seem to support the proposition that the landlord does not have a claim against the receivership estate for the balance of the term of the lease if the receiver rejects the lease. Most of these cases, however, are from the 1930s or before. Clark justifies this as follows: the receiver “cannot be liable for the rental reserved in the lease because he is not a party to the lease, neither is he an assignee of the lease, nor of the remainder of the term; neither is he, strictly speaking, successor.” 2, Clark on Receivers, §442(a) (3rd Ed. 1959).
As indicated, merely taking possession of the premises does not result in a receiver affirming the lease. The receiver is entitled to a reasonable period of time to determine whether to affirm the lease or reject it. Sunflower Oil Co. v. Wilson, 142 U.S. 313, 322 (1892). However, affirmation of the lease may be signified by either an express agreement or by implication. What constitutes a reasonable time for the receiver to determine whether to assume or reject the lease is a factual question determined from all the facts and circumstances. There are cases, however, that hold that a receiver’s possession of the premises for even as long as a year may not constitute an affirmation. See North Kansas City Bridge and R. N Co. v. Leness, 82 F.2d 9, 12 (8th Cir. 1936) (finding the receiver’s nearly 17-month possession was not an adoption of the lease). What is owed the landlord for the receiver’s possession can be an issue of dispute. Unlike under current bankruptcy law, “[t]he compensation to be received by the lessor should be a reasonable rental value of the premises occupied by the receiver.” Clark, supra. at §442(a); Irving Trust Co. v. Desmore, supra. In your cases, there may be different results. The landlord of the dispensary might be justified in arguing that the lease rent should be paid, since you were operating the dispensary and the parties had agreed on that rate, and, therefore agreed it was a reasonable rate. You could argue a lower rate would be the justified given COVID-19 restrictions and that the reasonable value of renting such a dispensary, with such restrictions in place, is less. As to the bar, however, a much stronger case could be made. Because you did not operate the bar, and used the premises basically only for storage, the reasonable rental value for storage space in the neighborhood should determine the rent owed.
- Senior Partner
Peter A. Davidson is a Senior Partner in the Bankruptcy, Receivership, and Creditors’ Rights Department.
Since 1977 Peter has represented receivers, plaintiffs and defendants in receivership actions in state and federal court ...
Subscribe
Recent Posts
- New Cal/OSHA Indoor Heat Standards Require New Prevention Measures and Written Prevention Plan | By: Joanne Warriner
- California Bans All Plastic Bags at Grocery Stores | By: Pooja S. Nair
- FTC’s Nationwide Ban on Non-Compete Agreements Stopped by Federal Court Ruling | By: Cate A. Veeneman
- Can the IRS Obtain a Receiver to Help Collect Taxes Owed? | By: Peter Davidson
- Severing Unconscionable Terms in Employment Arbitration Agreements | By: Jared W. Slater
- Can You Collaterally Attack a Receiver’s Appointment?
- Changes to PAGA Create Opportunities for Employers to Minimize Penalties | By: Tanner Hosfield
- Overbroad Employment Arbitration Agreements Will Not Be Enforced in California | By: Jared W. Slater
- LA Al Fresco Deadline Extended | By: Pooja S. Nair
- The Battle for Supremacy: Federal Arbitration Act v. California Arbitration Act | By: Jared W. Slater
Blogs
Contributors
Archives
- October 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014