The secret to a really good abstract

There really is a secret to a good abstract and, I apologize in advance because it will sound a little patronizing at first, it is to read the lease and fill out the abstract. Seriously?  It does sound patronizing, doesn’t it? But, it is very obvious reviewing an abstract that has been completed using the more common method – complete the abstract by finding the information in the lease.

Is there a difference? Absolutely. The common method is one we refer to as “hunt and peck.” You need to fill out the co-tenancy section in the abstract, you go looking in the lease. And, then, when you find it, you may do a cut and paste of the entire section. Is that portion of the abstract complete? It will absolutely look like it. You have four or five paragraphs related to cotenancy. However, is it really complete? Odds are – no.

When you read a lease and complete and abstract, you read through parts of the lease that apply to many different sections. For example – the definition of Shopping Center and the definition of Gross Leasable Area. Whether the Shopping Center is defined to include all of the anchors, or the outparcels, or the adjacent wholesale club may impact a tenant’s tax or CAM or insurance calculation. Or whether the landlord is even required to provide common area liability or property insurance on a parcel. It may impact an exclusive. If Gross Leasable Area is defined as something like the ground floor area of the shopping center, or as the area available to lease to retail tenants may impact whether that second floor office space or the hotel or multi-family space in the center is included.

A good abstract takes the information from various parts of the lease and dispenses it throughout the abstract to where it is needed. Think about a clause that might state that the tenant has the right to terminate the lease after the fifth lease year if sales are less than $500/sf. A good abstract will address whether an initial partial lease year is or is not the first lease year. It will take that $500/sf and consider whether a lease for a 2,600 sf space but is based upon 2,500 sf should apply the $500/sf to 2,600 sf or 2,500 sf.

A hunt and peck of either of those two abstract sections might get you a couple of paragraphs each, but may not address those other factors that truly change the requirements.

If you read through the lease, you may see the requirement that the landlord is required to paint the interior of an anchor tenant’s premises once every ten years, and you can plan for it. If you are doing a “hunt and peck” abstract, there may not be a spot on the abstract requesting such a requirement, which may lead to a nasty surprise when the tenant asks the landlord to fulfill its obligation and you find that you will be $250k off in the budget.

It may seem like semantics – “read the lease and complete the abstract” vs “complete the abstract by finding the information on the lease.” But, it makes all of the difference in the world.

This blog is not intended as a recruiting tool. However, if you see those two statements as more than semantics, and you are one of the odd few that truly enjoys reading leases, you should probably be with us! And, if you can see and appreciate the difference between the two statements but really don’t want to read the leases, we are here for you!

Due diligence before the due diligence?

happy dance

When we perform acquisition due diligence on behalf of a buyer, we find two types of issues. The first is where the seller has presented information that overstates the income or conditions. The seller may have presented that a tenant’s minimum rent is $10,000 per month, but the lease states $9,000. Or, perhaps the lease does state $10,000, but we find that the seller has been billing only $9,000 (with the seller having agreed to take less based upon some side agreement). The buyer can then go back to the seller and accurately claim that the income had been overstated. Or the seller did not present that a tenant has a right to terminate at the end of the fifth lease year in a ten year term if sales are less than $x, and we can see that sales are less than $x. These type of adjustments may require a purchase price adjustment because the seller had presented information that was not accurate, and was more positive that the situation actually is.

The second type of adjustment is one where the seller presented information that understates the cash flow, or may be more negative than the true scenario. Perhaps rent is presented as $10,000 per month with annual CPI increases, but the CPI increases have never been applied. Or, a tenant is being billed based upon the leasable area of the property, but the lease requires that the tenant be billed upon the leased area of the property. These, for us, are the more exciting issues because they represent the buyer’s upside.

With the first type of adjustment, where the seller presented overly optimistic information, the buyer goes back and, appropriately, asks for a purchase price adjustment. However, with the second type of adjustment, the buyer learns that they may be able to immediately increase the cash flow upon closing.

Occasionally, but not often enough, a seller will conduct its own “due diligence” on a property that they intend to sell. And, almost always, it pays off. This past week, we did a little pre-sale due diligence on a small center – 87,000 sf, grocery anchored, with 19 tenants. A number of issues came up provided a really nice pop to cash flow – a few tenants had gross up clauses that were not being administered; a few leases required expenses to be billed based upon leased not leasable; quite a number of tenants were allowed to be billed based upon “less separately assessed”; and, the best, was the grocery store had a cap reset at the beginning of each option period. Ultimately, a $49k increase to cash flow per year.  Had we found those doing the acquisition due diligence on behalf of a buyer, we would play the music for a happy dance. In this case, doing this pre-sale due diligence on behalf of the seller, the seller is now able to increase the cash flow by that $49k per year. At a conservative cap rate of 8%, that more than $600k in additional value the seller will realize from the property. We also identified a “no increase in taxes due to a sale of the property more than one time in any five year period” clause that a buyer would be sure to pick up, but we were also able to pull that language that it was during the Initial Term. With that particular tenant now in a renewal period, the language no longer applies.

The moral – take some time before you put a property on the market so you, the seller, realize all of the value from your property. Otherwise, you’ll hear the buyer doing its “found equity” happy dance upon closing.

Let’s eat, Grandma! Let’s eat Grandma!


A comma can change the meaning of a sentence fairly drastically. And, for lease administration purposes, it can have an unexpected impact on cash flow. The clause below was from a center we worked on last week:


“Tenant’s Proportionate Share” shall be equal to the number of rentable square feet included in the Premises divided by the total number of square feet included in the Building multiplied by ninety-five (95%) percent.

Yes. We do have the order of operation. If you were lucky or unlucky enough to have Sr. Julia Mary for seventh grade pre-algebra, you might have learned “Please Excuse My Dear Aunt Sally.” Parentheses – do what is in the parantheses first. Exponent – apply the exponents next. Then Multiply and Divide. Finally, Add and Subtract.

Why bring up Sr. Julia Mary (affectionately, by some, known as Scary Mary)? Because (1) if we take the premises divided by the center square footage and then multiply by 95%, we get a completely different answer than (2) taking the square footage divided by (the center square footage x 95). Take, for example, a 10,000 sf premises in a 100,000 sf shopping center. The straight prorate share would be 10,000/100,000 = 10%. But, we have a 95% factor to apply. In example 1 – we get 9.5% – 10,000/100,000 = 10%; 10% x 95% = 9.5%. In example 2, we get 10.53% – 100,000 x 95% = 95,000; 10,000/95,000 = 10.53%. That’s almost an 11% difference.

This one needs a letter agreement to correct it!

Leased vs. Leased and Occupied


A few months ago, we had a blog that addressed a difference in lease language where an excluded area was defined as any premises greater than 15,000 sf vs any occupant greater than 15,000 sf – a subtle change in lease language having a material impact on a lease’s or even a property’s cash flow.

This week, we had a similar situation related to different wording. The expenses of the property were to be “grossed up” to what they would be if the property were 95% occupied. This gross up language is most commonly associated with office leases where a tenant’s prorate share is determined using the rentable area of the building. If the building has 100,000 sf and the tenant is 10,000 sf, their prorata share is 10%. That 10% may even be fixed in the lease. If the building was only 50% occupied, and janitorial in the office building was $50,000, without a gross up, the tenant would pay $50,000 x 10% = $5,000. However, a gross up recognizes that the $50,000 in expenses were attributable to a half full building. To keep it simple, if we “grossed up” expenses to what they might be if the building were 100% occupied, we would essentially calculate:

gross up

So, using the grossed up share of $100,000 x 10%, the tenant’s share of the expense would be $10,000. So, if the 50,000 sf of occupied tenants all paid using the grossed up expenses, they would pay a total of $50,000, and the landlord would be whole. If the expenses were not grossed up, the tenants would have only paid $25,000, with the landlord absorbing the other $25,000 in expenses. (This example used straight prorate. In office, tenant’s shares are often couple wit base years as well, but I was trying to keep the example straightforward).

Simply, the purpose of the gross up is to make sure the tenants are paying their share of variable expenses based upon the square footage of the property occupied, really the square footage causing that expense. (Notice, only variable expenses get grossed up. If landscaping cost $25,000 per year, that expense would likely not vary if the property was 50% or 100% occupied so would not get grossed up.)

This week’s issue that caused some debate was the wording of an inline tenant’s lease in a retail property. As discussed, gross ups are typically associated with office leases. Therefore, office landlords are pretty detailed with the gross up language – they know what is needed. The tenant’s lease required the tenant to pay a prorata share of expenses based upon its square footage over the square footage of the center (there were some issues as to whether outparcels were included or excluded from the definition of the center, but that’s another story!). The expenses were also to have been grossed up to what the expenses would have been if the center had been 95% leased.

As the examples show, the purpose of a gross up is to determine what the expenses would have been had the center be 95% occupied. But, that’s not what the lease said. It said 95% leased. Subtleties! Subtleties!

In the property, there is a 25,000 sf premises which had been vacant for a number of years. In mid 2016, a lease was executed for that particular premises. The tenant took possession of that premises on the day the lease was executed. Because some approvals were needed from other tenants, the tenant received permits in March 2017.  The rent commencement dated was the earlier of open or permits + 180 days. As of March 2018, the tenant is still not open.

Based upon the “intent” of a gross up clause, we would treat the premises as un-occupied, and we would still be grossing up. However, based upon the terms of that particular lease, the Commencement Date of that lease was possession – mid 2016. Therefore, as of mid 2016, that particular premises was actually leased.

Two words often used interchangeably – occupied and leased – making a difference as to whether we have the ability to gross up expenses. The intent was clearly to gross up if the center was less than 95% occupied, but we are stuck with the word “leased.” The premises was, in fact, leased.

Pay attention to the language!