Lingering Provisions of The CARES ACT That May Impact Iowa and Nebraska Landlords

In March of 2020 the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Securities Act (“CARES Act”) was signed into law. The moratorium thereunder originally had a sunset date of July 25, 2020. Congress chose not to extend this deadline, and when the CDC tried to do so by administrative order, the Supreme Court of the United States invalidated it. See Alabama Association of Realtors v. Department of Health and Human Services, 21A23 (Aug. 26, 2021). However, certain portions of the CARES Act did not include any such sunset dates and will continue to impact Nebraska and Iowa landlord until Congress legislatively puts an end to them.

Nebraska and Iowa Landlords should be advised that their normal pre-pandemic practices for recovery of unpaid rents and evictions based upon the same may now be affected by provisions of the CARES Act found in section 4024. If a tenant resides within any of the “covered property” defined under subsection 4024(2), then a landlord will need to provide a thirty (30) day notice before any writ of restitution can be executed and the tenant evicted. “[C]overed property” [under the CARES Act] means any property that—

(A) participates in—

(i) a covered housing program (as defined in section 41411(a) of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (34 U.S.C. 12 12491(a))); or

(ii) the rural housing voucher program under section 542 of the Housing Act of 1949 (42 U.S.C. 1490r); or

(B) has a—

(i) Federally backed mortgage loan; or

(ii) Federally backed multifamily mortgage loan.

See Public Law No. 116-136, § 4024(2). Even though it does not affect every landlord and tenant situation, this definition is broad enough to implicate a great number of them.

However, courts across Nebraska and Iowa have interpreted the application of these rules differently when “covered property” is implicated. Some allow for normal notices and cure periods for non-payment provided for by state statute (3 days in Iowa and 7 days in Nebraska; see Iowa Code Ann §562A.27; see also Neb.Rev.Stat. §76-1431), but then delay the issuance of a writ of restitution until thirty (30) days from the original notice, while others require actual service of a thirty (30) day notice for a landlord to avoid having to start the entire process over again. Therefore, it is important that Nebraska and Iowa Landlords obtain proper advice before instituting these actions in this current landscape in to avoid confusion, delay or added expense.

Anticipated Changes for Landlords & Tenants Due to Covid-19

Considering the current state of affairs and the imminent expiration of Nebraska’s Temporary Residential Eviction Relief Executive Order, it is important for landlords and tenants to become informed of their duties and the potential for additional exposure to new claims on the horizon arising from circumstances surrounding COVID-19. This article is not meant to be an exhaustive discussion in that regard. Rather, I wish to provide an illustrative list of some of those duties and issues surrounding them which could be affected by the anticipated post-pandemic changes to the commercial real estate market.  

It is well founded in Nebraska law that landlords have a duty to mitigate damages following an abandonment, or any other breach of the lease which leads to a vacant unit in order to maximize their recovery of damages. See Hilliard v. Robertson, 253 Neb. 232, 570 N.W.2d 180 (1997). The satisfaction or not of this duty is fact dependent, but proof of the affirmative defense for breaching tenants does not currently require expert evidence, and even in cases where the landlord has erected marketing signage to relet the premises, Nebraska courts have held that such was insufficient to meet this common law duty. Id. In light of the expected shifts in the commercial real estate market due to the growth of implementing work-from-home strategies, and the eventual corrections likely to follow the sunset of governmental lending and grant programs, this duty and the issues tangential to it should be expected to be litigated frequently. Both landlords and tenants should pay close attention to that litigation as there are likely to be arguments which could alter the proof requirements as well as the duty itself in the coming months to account for a more volatile and shifting market space. 

Nebraska courts have also long held that commercial tenants have a duty to protect lawful entrants to the premises from foreseeable dangers in arrangement and use of his premises. Hansen v. First Westside Bank, 182 Neb. 664, 156 N.W.2d 790. Provided further, in some circumstances, liability for a patron’s injuries can even be extended to commercial landlords. See Reicheneker v. Seward, 203 Neb. 68, 277 N.W.2d 539 (1979). In particular, if a lease is not artfully crafted, or if a landlord fails to address issues that he is put on notice of by his tenant and which create an unreasonable risk of harm to patrons, then liability can be extended to the landlord as well as his tenant for injuries which occurred as a result of those issues. Id. But what does this mean regarding the potential for exposure to tenants and landlords with regard to claims based on contracting COVID-19?   

If landlords had no duty to protect their tenants or their tenant’s patrons, then they could save time and resources by demonstrating a hands-off management approach.  Alex J. Schnepf, A Covid-19 Heavyweight Bout Tenant Safety Versus Discrimination, 35 Prob. & Prop., 24, 25 (2021).  However, the absence of a duty to keep tenants safe is not a reality in many states because of the implied warranty of habitability.  Id.   

In Nebraska, the implied warranty of habitability creates a duty for landlords to maintain habitable conditions on their rental properties by ensuring the premises be safe for the health of the tenants.  For example, landlords must “do whatever is necessary, after written or actual notice, to put and keep the premises in a fit and habitable condition.”  Neb. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 76-1419 (West 2001).  The implied warranty of habitability and limited circumstances for the imputation of premises liability discussed above could theoretically create exposure for landlords who fail to reduce the spread of COVID-19 throughout their rental properties.  See Schnepf, Safety Versus Discrimination, supra; see also Reicheneker, Supra. 

It is foreseeable the assurances of the implied warranty of habitability and limited circumstances of imputation of premises liability may be extended to encompass protecting tenants and their patrons from spreading COVID-19 because the virus presents a direct threat to public health and safety.  It follows that an outbreak of the virus on rental properties could render a property uninhabitable and poses the real threat of substantial lawsuits amongst and against tenants and landlords alike.  What steps should landlords take to ensure the safety of their tenants and the habitability of their rental properties?   

Should landlords of commercial rental properties require their employees to receive vaccinations to mitigate the spread of COVID-19?  The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission states that employers may implicate vaccination policies as a qualification for employment.  The Occupational Safety and Health Administration suggests employers have the vaccine available to eligible employees, either at no or low cost, and supplemental information about the vaccines.  See ABA, COVID-19 Vaccines Prompt Different Questions for Employers and Employees (Feb. 20, 2021), available at https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2021/02/covid-19-vaccines-prompt-different-questions-for-employers-and-e/. 

Who is exempt from an employee mandated vaccine?  Employers must engage in a process that considers reasonable accommodations for individuals with disability, those that are susceptible to the vaccine, or someone who has a religious objection.  If an employer is unable to make a reasonable accommodation to an employee, they should consider granting leave to the employee.  In doing so, employers should consider the following: Can the employee be granted a period of leave until the threat of COVID ceases?  Is the employee eligible for leave under the Family Medical Leave Act?  Does the employer have generally applicable workplace leave policies that could be used to allow the employee to take leave until the situation in the country changes?  Id.   

The impact of COVID-19 has created a less than favorable housing situation for tenants and landlords alike.  Nebraska’s Temporary Residential Eviction Relief Executive Order, acting as a moratorium on evictions, is set to expire on May 31, 2021.  Further, the Center for Disease Control’s eviction moratorium shall expire after June 30, 2021.  When these moratoriums lapse, an influx of evictions is likely because of COVID-19’s impact on employment, health, and the overall economy.  See Claire Corea, Tenants’ Right: The Law on Paper Versus the Law in Practice, 47 Rutgers L. Rec. 226, 254 (2020). Likewise, as the funds from governmental programs which have subsidized the market begin to run out, and as more companies continue to implement work-from-home strategies, it could reasonably be expected that the availability of replacement commercial tenants to fill those spaces would be less abundant than in recent years. Therefore, it is important for landlords and tenants alike to be aware of not only the market shifts, but also the changes in their duties and potential exposure to liability stemming from the resulting litigation.

Nebraska Supreme Court Draws a Fine Line Between Federal and State Arbitration Laws in Home Sales

On any given day, millions of Americans are entering into contracts both big and small. Some of these contracts represent the terms and conditions for a major life decision for those people, while other contracts represent transactions that no one would give a second thought to. For example, as you are reading this article there is likely someone signing their name to a contract for a mortgage on the home they plan to raise their children in. Meanwhile someone somewhere else is agreeing to the terms and conditions of a mobile app designed to super impose animated animals over their face in a selfie. Regardless of the seriousness of the contract, people are more often than not agreeing to arbitration clauses that they never read.

Most people do not even realize that they are agreeing to arbitration clauses that will keep them out of the courthouse when they enter into these contracts. Even more people do not realize that arbitration is governed by one of two sets of laws in most cases, and parties who are not carefully drafting those clauses might find them unenforceable. Recently, in a nasty dispute between a property management company and a home buyer, the Nebraska Supreme Court in Garlock v. 3DS Properties, L.L.C., considered whether an arbitration clause found in the contract for the sale of a home was governed by Nebraska arbitration law or federal arbitration law.

In Garlock, the Garlocks purchased a home from 3DS Properties. The Garlocks later sued 3DS Properties for damages they alleged were caused by serious problems in the home which 3DS Properties did not disclose as required by law. The Garlocks brought this lawsuit in state court, and 3DS Properties sought to have it removed from state court and taken to arbitration. Both the Garlocks and 3DS Properties disagreed on where the Garlock’s claim should be considered. The dispute lasted several years until it eventually landed in the Nebraska Supreme Court. That dispute highlighted two important distinctions that should always be considered by anyone entering into a contract with an arbitration clause in Nebraska.

ATTENTION TO DETAIL REALLY MATTERS

Because the Garlocks wanted their case to be heard in state court rather than in an arbitration court, they argued that the arbitration clause in the contract between them and 3DS Properties was unenforceable under Nebraska’s Uniform Arbitration Act. The Garlocks based this argument on the fact that the contract between them and 3DS Properties contained a clause above the signature line that read:

THIS CONTRACT CONTAINS AN ARBITRATION PROVISION WHICH MAY BE ENFORCED BY THE PARTIES.

The Garlocks reasoned that because this notice was not underlined it was not enforceable under Nebraska’s Uniform Arbitration Act. The Nebraska Uniform Arbitration Act requires that all contracts with binding arbitration clauses include the above notice which must be capitalized and underlined in order to be enforceable. Because this notice was not underlined the Nebraska Supreme Court reasoned that, standing alone, the arbitration clause in the contract between the Garlocks and 3DS Properties was unenforceable on its face under Nebraska law.

This one minor detail was missed by 3DS Properties in the drafting of its real estate sale contract and highlights the importance of utilizing a qualified attorney in the contract review process. 3DS Properties was not without a strong counterargument, however.

ARBITRATION MATTERS ARE GOVERNED BY BOTH STATE & FEDERAL LAWS

3DS Properties badly wanted to have this dispute heard in arbitration court. To do this, 3DS Properties had to counter the Garlock’s argument that the arbitration clause was unenforceable because it failed to have an all capitalized and underlined notice. Rather than accepting Nebraska law as the governing choice of law, 3DS Properties argued that the arbitration clause governed by federal arbitration law and therefore did not have to include an underlined notice.

This argument was based on the Nebraska Supreme Court’s holding in Wilczewski v. Charter West National Bank where the Court held that federal arbitration laws applied to all contracts formed in interstate commerce under Title 9 of the United States Code. In cases where federal arbitration laws apply, contracts do not have to meet the requirements under Nebraska’s Uniform Arbitration Act. In Wilczewski, the sale of a home under foreclosure contained an arbitration clause which the buyers argued was unenforceable under Nebraska’s Uniform Arbitration Act. There, the Court reasoned that the arbitration clause did not have to comply with Nebraska’s Uniform Arbitration Act because the sale of homes in foreclosure are done by banks who are integral parts of the stream of interstate commerce.

3DS Properties tried to harness this reasoning in their dispute against the Garlocks. The Nebraska Supreme Court, however, disagreed when they determined that the simple sale of a home, rather than a foreclosure done by a bank, was purely an intrastate activity rather than an interstate activity. In other words, contracts governing the sale of real estate in Nebraska which do not involve parties from other states or lenders from other states is considered an intrastate activity and must conform to the requirements of the Nebraska Uniform Arbitration Act for arbitration to be binding.

IMPORTANT TAKEAWAYS FROM THE GARLOCK CASE

First, the details really do matter. Whether you are drafting a contract, or you are agreeing to a contract someone else has drafted it is important to fully understand all terms, conditions, and laws that govern those terms and conditions. In the case of Garlock, the parties could have avoided thousands of dollars in expenses, and years of litigation by simply underlining a single sentence in their sale contract. Moreover, the parties could have saved a great deal of trouble by having a qualified attorney review their sales contract prior to its execution.

Second, the context of a contract can completely change the arbitration laws it is governed by. If you are a party who prefers arbitration over traditional litigation, it is imperative that you understand the context in which your contract is being executed. In Garlock, the parties were selling a home in a simple real estate transaction and therefore the arbitration laws of Nebraska applied to the formation of their contract. However, had these parties been using an out of state lender, or selling the property in a foreclosure, the federal arbitration laws would have applied to the formation of their contract.

If you are in the middle of trying to sort out the contents of an important contract, please do not go it alone unless you fully understand the legal ramifications of what you are drafting or agreeing to. If you have questions about contracts, the clauses in those contracts, or arbitration and arbitration clauses make sure you get in touch with a qualified attorney before it becomes a mess you cannot get out of.