Most commercial evictions will be prohibited through May 31, 2020 under an executive order issued on April 6, 2020 by Arizona Governor Doug Ducey. Under the order, commercial landlords will be prohibited from locking out tenants, issuing a notice to vacate, or otherwise “attempt[ing] to inhibit the operations of a business.” The prohibition applies if the tenant is suffering financial hardship from the COVID-19 pandemic that prevents it from paying rent and will remain in effect until May 31, 2020.
The order does not excuse tenants from paying rent during this time. It does, however, temporarily deprive landlords of most of the remedies that they can exercise against tenants who do not pay rent. For example, many commercial leases allow a landlord — sometimes following a short notice period — to simply change the locks and bar a non-paying tenant from accessing the leased space. This order expressly prohibits such “lock-out” remedies.
This order also temporarily suspends any judicial actions that seek to evict commercial tenants. The only exception is where “a court determines on motion of one of the parties that it is contrary to the interest of justice” to delay the eviction.
This language implicitly modifies the standard applicable to forcible entry and detainer actions, which is the judicial process for commercial evictions. Typically, in such actions, courts are to determine only “the right of actual possession.” A.R.S. § 12-1177. By adding an “interest of justice” standard, the order requires courts to conduct an additional inquiry.
Some are questioning whether imposing such a requirement is within the governor’s powers. If that issue is litigated, tenants will likely argue that the governor was properly exercising authority in an emergency. Landlords will argue that the order effectuates a change in the law without legislative approval and that the governor lacks authority to order the judiciary to act. Given the short duration of the order, it is unclear whether this issue will ever be litigated to resolution.
Exceptions and limitations
- Does not apply to tenants that are ineligible for the federal Paycheck Protection Program. This program generally includes businesses with fewer than 500 employees, though some larger businesses may also qualify.
- Order requires commercial tenants that seek to delay an eviction or lockout to provide the landlord with supporting documentation of their financial hardship. Those tenants must also acknowledge that the lease remains in effect.
- Order does not excuse tenants from their rent obligations. Thus, unless tenants and landlords agree for rent deferrals or forbearances, landlords will likely still be able to exercise eviction or lockout remedies if tenants are in default once the order expires.
- Order requires tenants that receive financial assistance from the Paycheck Protection Program or other programs to apply some of that assistance to past or current rent but does not specify the portion of assistance to be used.
- Order does not preclude the continuation of eviction actions that predate the March 11 issuance of a public health state of emergency.
In practice, many landlords and tenants are entering into forbearance agreements that will govern the landlord’s ability to exercise these remedies. The order also encourages landlords to consider entering into such agreements. Specifically, it recommends that landlords agree to “defer or adjust rent payments,” “waive late fees, penalties and interest,” and “develop rent repayment plans.” These types of terms are common among the forbearance agreements that we have seen.
Of course, these agreements and the practical reality that many tenants are not paying rent have had a cascading effect on landlord’s own obligations to their lenders. The order attempts to address this by asking lenders to “consider providing an opportunity for a forbearance for any commercial real estate borrower that has suspended any action” under the order. However, this portion of the order is not mandatory. Landlords and lenders should therefore be proactive in working out their own forbearance agreements.
For more information, please contact Jeff Sklar at sklar@lrrc.com or visit www.lrrc.com.
Tags: COVID-19 Rapid Response Team, Real Estate LeasingAbout This Blog
Lewis Roca is immersed in your industry and invested in your success. We share insights and trends that can affect your business.
Search
Topics
Archives
- September 2024
- August 2024
- May 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- September 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 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
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 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
- April 2019
- March 2019
- November 2018
- April 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- April 2016
- January 2016
Authors
- Alfredo T. Alonso
- Amy E. Altshuler
- Edwin A. Barkel
- Trevor G. Bartel
- Nick Bauman
- G. Warren Bleeker
- Brooks Brennan
- Ogonna M. Brown
- Chad S. Caby
- John Carson
- Rob Charles
- Joshua T. Chu
- Howard E. Cole
- Katherine Costella
- Thomas J. Daly
- Pat Derdenger
- Thomas J. Dougherty
- Susan M. Freeman
- Yalda Godusi Arellano
- Salma G. Granich
- John C. Gray, CIPP/US
- Art Hasan
- Frances J. Haynes
- Dietrich C. Hoefner
- Jennifer K. Hostetler
- David A. Jackson
- Andrew Jacobsohn
- Kyle W. Kellar
- Kris J. Kostolansky
- Gregory S. Lampert
- Shaun P. Lee
- Glenn J. Light
- Laura A. Lo Bianco
- Karen Jurichko Lowell
- James M. Lyons
- H. William Mahaffey
- Constantine Marantidis
- A.J. Martinez
- Patrick Emerson McCormick, CIPP/US
- Michael J. McCue
- Lindsay L. McKae
- Linda M. Mitchell
- Gary J. Nelson
- Rachel A. Nicholas
- Laura Pasqualone
- Michael D. Plachy
- David A. Plumley
- Kurt S. Prange
- Katie M. (Derrig) Rios
- Robert F. Roos
- Karl F. Rutledge
- Daniel A. Salgado
- Mary Ellen Simonson
- Susan Strebel Sperber
- Jan A. Steinhour
- Ryan M. Swank
- Dustin R. Szakalski
- Chris A. Underwood
- Jennifer A. Van Kirk
- Hilary D. Wells
- Drew Wilson, CIPP/US
- Karen L. Witt
- Meng Zhong
Recent Posts
- The Importance of Retaining a Grandfathered Gaming Location in Nevada
- Welcome our 2024 Michael D. Nosler Scholarship Intern
- Going Viral: Navigating Promotional Sweepstakes Legality in the Social Media Era
- Arizona Voters Modify Creditors' Remedies with Passage of Proposition 209
- Nevada Gaming Control Board Issues Gaming Technology Approval Guidelines
- Amendments to Nevada Gaming Regulation 5
- Nevada Gaming Control Board Workshop on Public Regulation
- New Wave of Arizona Privacy Litigation Regarding Tracking Pixels
- Legal Issues, Problems, and Unanswered Questions Regarding a State’s Ability and Potential Departure from the Depository Institution Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980 (“DIDMCA”)
- New Trademark Scam