My jurisdiction is: California,usa
CO-OWNER VS CO-OWNER
HISTORY:
My former business partner and I are dentists in the San Francisco bay area. In 1982, we purchased the dental suite in which we practiced. At that time, the previous building owners sold the medical-dental building to each of the doctors who were practicing in the building by converting it into office condominiums. We hold title of our unit as TIC with both of us listed on the Deed as having an "undivided one-half interest" in the suite. Ten years ago, my former partner retired and sold me his half of the dental practice but maintained ownership of his half of the dental suite.
In our sales agreement, we had a small section (a paragraph) regarding me renting his half at an agreed upon cost per square foot and who was responsible for the association fees and taxes (my former partner) and who was responsible for repairs and tenant improvements (me). It stated the term as ten years and had annual COLA increases spelled out.
My former partner and I had planned to update and renew our agreement when the agreement expired this past fall (2008). He had his son-in-law (he works for a commercial real estate leasing company in downtown SF) contact my current partner (a sub lessee of mine) and myself to work out the new terms and rate. I conducted an informal survey of a dozen local dentists and found out what they were paying for their rent and their terms. The son-in-law presented a list of comparative available rental spaces and we had lunch to discuss the new rent and terms. He stated that he believed that the suite was in the most desirable location and building around and therefore should have be rented at one of the highest rate in town
I pointed out that since his father-in-law and I were equal partners (undivided one half interest), an agreement needed to be reached between the two of us. I stated that the management of the suite is a joint decision not a unilateral one. He and I had to agree on the rent and terms and I did not agree with his proposed rent and terms.
THE PLOT THICKENS:
My former partner hired a legal firm and had my current partner, our staffs and myself served with a "30 Day Notice to Terminate (CA Civil Code Sec 1946 or 1946.1). Along with the 30 Day notice was a letter from his law firm stating: "Not withstanding the Notice, Dr. XXX is interested in entering into a new lease with you and..., subject to the negotiation of a mutually agreeable lease agreement subject to the following minimum terms: 1) $2.75/sf NNN and 2) all physical changes to the suite must have his approval."
I have continued to pay my former partner the last agreed upon rent every month.
MY QUESTIONS:
Does my former partner and co-owner have the right to evict me? And if the space becomes vacant, don't I have an equal right to decide who will be the next tenant and at what rate and terms?
thanks for reading my first post. hope I did it right
dave
CO-OWNER VS CO-OWNER
HISTORY:
My former business partner and I are dentists in the San Francisco bay area. In 1982, we purchased the dental suite in which we practiced. At that time, the previous building owners sold the medical-dental building to each of the doctors who were practicing in the building by converting it into office condominiums. We hold title of our unit as TIC with both of us listed on the Deed as having an "undivided one-half interest" in the suite. Ten years ago, my former partner retired and sold me his half of the dental practice but maintained ownership of his half of the dental suite.
In our sales agreement, we had a small section (a paragraph) regarding me renting his half at an agreed upon cost per square foot and who was responsible for the association fees and taxes (my former partner) and who was responsible for repairs and tenant improvements (me). It stated the term as ten years and had annual COLA increases spelled out.
My former partner and I had planned to update and renew our agreement when the agreement expired this past fall (2008). He had his son-in-law (he works for a commercial real estate leasing company in downtown SF) contact my current partner (a sub lessee of mine) and myself to work out the new terms and rate. I conducted an informal survey of a dozen local dentists and found out what they were paying for their rent and their terms. The son-in-law presented a list of comparative available rental spaces and we had lunch to discuss the new rent and terms. He stated that he believed that the suite was in the most desirable location and building around and therefore should have be rented at one of the highest rate in town
I pointed out that since his father-in-law and I were equal partners (undivided one half interest), an agreement needed to be reached between the two of us. I stated that the management of the suite is a joint decision not a unilateral one. He and I had to agree on the rent and terms and I did not agree with his proposed rent and terms.
THE PLOT THICKENS:
My former partner hired a legal firm and had my current partner, our staffs and myself served with a "30 Day Notice to Terminate (CA Civil Code Sec 1946 or 1946.1). Along with the 30 Day notice was a letter from his law firm stating: "Not withstanding the Notice, Dr. XXX is interested in entering into a new lease with you and..., subject to the negotiation of a mutually agreeable lease agreement subject to the following minimum terms: 1) $2.75/sf NNN and 2) all physical changes to the suite must have his approval."
I have continued to pay my former partner the last agreed upon rent every month.
MY QUESTIONS:
Does my former partner and co-owner have the right to evict me? And if the space becomes vacant, don't I have an equal right to decide who will be the next tenant and at what rate and terms?
thanks for reading my first post. hope I did it right
dave
