Tough New Security System Isn't a Violation of Tenant's Access Rights

April 22, 2019

What Happened: A landlord leased space containing a cellular communications tower for tenants’ use to store valuable equipment. The lease gave the tenants “24/7” access to the space. The landlord changed the security arrangements from a simple lockbox to a more elaborate call-in system requiring tenants to call and wait up to an hour for an agent of the landlord to let them in during non-regular business hours.

What Happened: A landlord leased space containing a cellular communications tower for tenants’ use to store valuable equipment. The lease gave the tenants “24/7” access to the space. The landlord changed the security arrangements from a simple lockbox to a more elaborate call-in system requiring tenants to call and wait up to an hour for an agent of the landlord to let them in during non-regular business hours. One tenant claimed the new system violated its access rights under the lease and asked the court to enjoin—that is, issue an order barring the landlord from enforcing it. When the court refused, the tenant appealed.

Decision: The Pennsylvania appeals court said the lower court was right to deny the injunction.

Reasoning: The lease was ambiguous. It said the tenant had 24/7 access but didn’t say whether that access was restricted or unrestricted. But what was clear, the court continued, was that the landlord was responsible for ensuring that the millions of dollars’ worth of property tenants store at the premises was kept secure and that the new security system was installed in response to recent incidents in which intruders tried to break in.

  • SBA Towers II LLC v. Wireless Holdings, LLC, March 2019

Topics

More like this