CASH OR CREDIT…LANDLORDS BEWARE!

nat rosasco • May 17, 2013

INTRODUCTION Though it may seem that the economy is on the mend, a quick discussion with the leaders of many area businesses exposes an underlying unease as to whether the economy as a whole can sustain its recovery given the inability of bureaucrats in Washington to craft long-term solutions to our country’s financial crisis.  Many […] The post CASH OR CREDIT…LANDLORDS BEWARE! appeared first on GGHH Law.

INTRODUCTION

Though it may seem that the economy is on the mend, a quick discussion with the leaders of many area businesses exposes an underlying unease as to whether the economy as a whole can sustain its recovery given the inability of bureaucrats in Washington to craft long-term solutions to our country’s financial crisis.  Many of these businesses continue to struggle to remain profitable and avoid the financial pitfalls of the recent recession.  These same struggles affect more than the businesses themselves, and when a business’ financial struggles involve a bankruptcy they can have devastating results for creditors, particularly commercial landlords.  While commercial landlords either holding a cash security deposit or a letter of credit may think themselves isolated from a tenant’s bankruptcy, some have found that neither is actually immune from risk.

CASH PITFALLS

Cash security deposits have long been the traditional form of security for a commercial lease, typically in the amount of one to two month’s rent.  However, the recent financial crisis exposed a weakness in what was otherwise thought to be ironclad security against a tenant’s default.  When a tenant declares bankruptcy the landlord may find themselves enmeshed in a fight with the bankruptcy trustee to retain that security deposit.  A cash security deposit is generally regarded as an asset of the bankruptcy estate under Section 541(a).  Courts have held, however, that landlords may offset a portion of the security deposit against their allowable claims but that any surplus must be returned to the debtor ( Oldden v. Tonto Realty Corp. , 143 F.2d 916 (2 nd Cir. 1944)).  They have gone further to provide that a landlord’s security deposit constitutes a perfected security interest or lien in the landlord’s favor ( In re Johnson , 215 B.R. 381, 384 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1997)).  It would seem the landlord’s ability to retain the security deposit is an equitable remedy until one examines and understands what an “allowable claim” is under the Bankruptcy Code.

A debtor-tenant has the ability to reject certain leases pursuant to Section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code.  Such a lease rejection is tantamount to a default under the terms of most leases giving the landlord a general unsecured claim against the bankruptcy estate for the resulting damages.  Unfortunately, the landlord’s claim is limited by Section 502(b)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code to the amount of accrued but unpaid rent plus the amount of rent reserved under the lease for the greater of one year or 15% of the remaining term of the lease.  To the extent the cash security deposit exceeds the amount of the Landlord’s claim, it must be returned to the debtor’s bankruptcy estate.

WHY IS A LETTER OF CREDIT BETTER THAN CASH

In order to provide some insulation from the risk of a security deposit being tied up in a tenant’s bankruptcy, many landlords prefer the issuance of a standby letter of credit.  A standby letter of credit issued by the tenant’s bank or, preferably, a bank satisfactory to the landlord is an independent obligation of the issuing bank to the landlord.  The letter of credit stands apart from the tenant’s obligation to reimburse the issuing bank and is therefore not generally a part of the bankruptcy estate.  Less risk?  It would seem that way until one considers the long list of bank failures over the past several years and the FDIC’s unwillingness to honor letters of credit issued to commercial landlords by failed banking institutions.  With the economic recovery still uncertain, commercial landlords should take proactive measures in their leases requiring tenants to replace letters of credit issued by insolvent banks and permitting the landlord to make a periodic review of the letter of credit issuer.  Landlords should also reserve the absolute right to approve the bank issuing the letter of credit or provide a list of acceptable financial institutions from whom they will accept a letter of credit.  It should also be noted that the interaction between a landlord’s proposed draw on a letter of credit and the 502(b)(6) cap is unsettled.  Landlord’s should anticipate that any drawdown on a letter of credit may have an impact on the amount of the landlord’s claim in a tenant’s bankruptcy.

Jordan Uditsky is a partner in the corporate practice of Garelli, Grogan, Hesse & Hauert.  He brings a diverse legal and business background to the firm, with a particular emphasis on the representation of startups and emerging companies, commercial real estate transactions, tax and estate planning.  He advises businesses in a broad range of general corporate and corporate transactional matters, including business organizations and choice of entity issues, financing and private equity, mergers, acquisitions and joint ventures as well as business restructurings.  Mr. Uditsky also employs his experience as a business owner to advise companies on regulatory issues and compliance matters, employment policies and legal issues related to their general operations and business strategy.

Garelli Grogan Hesse & Hauert offers sophisticated yet cost effective, practical solutions to our clients’ legal challenges.  We strive to understand not only the legal issue but our clients’ business goals as well and craft tailored solutions to help them succeed.  Our attorneys represent businesses and individuals throughout the Midwest in matters that include commercial litigation, securities, business counseling and transactions, commercial real estate, estate planning and family law.  For more information contact Jordan Uditsky at (630)833-5533 x12 or juditsky@gghhlaw.com.

The post CASH OR CREDIT…LANDLORDS BEWARE! appeared first on GGHH Law.

Speak to an Attorney

Related Posts
By Jordan Uditsky April 15, 2026
How Defining Your Goals Will Shape Your Dental Practice’s Business Succession Plan
By Jordan Uditsky April 2, 2026
How Buy-Sell Agreements Determine the Success of Your Transition
A doctor is sitting at a desk talking to a patient.
By Jordan Uditsky March 9, 2026
Most relationships, whether personal or professional, start with a certain level of mutual trust and respect, compatibility, and shared goals and priorities. But those characteristics don’t always last, and a once-promising partnership can devolve into disputes, distrust, or outright hostility. The dentist-patient relationship is not immune to such deterioration. There may come a day when the differences between a dentist and their patient make continued treatment undesirable or impractical. A patient, of course, is free to call it quits with their dentist at any time, or the patient and dentist can mutually agree to part ways. But when a dentist wants to stop treating a problematic or disruptive patient and terminate the relationship, things can be a bit stickier. It is crucial that a dentist handles the break-up carefully and in accordance with the law and ethical standards so as to avoid claims of patient abandonment that could threaten their professional license or expose them to liability. Are you interested in speaking with one of our attorneys? Click here to contact us now. Dentists Have a Right To Unilaterally Dismiss a Patient For Reasonable Cause As a preliminary matter, dentists may choose to responsibly end their relationship with a patient for any reasonable, legally permissible cause. As the American Dental Association (ADA) guidelines put it: The dentist has the right to dismiss a patient in situations where it is impossible to resolve differences or if the dentist cannot abide the patient’s behavior within the practice, as long as the dismissal is not for a legally impermissible discriminatory reason. Accordingly, a dentist may not end a patient relationship because of the patient’s race, religion, gender, color, age, national origin, disability, or other characteristics protected by federal and state anti-discrimination laws. Notably, political opinions are not a protected characteristic under the law. Common reasons a dentist may justifiably terminate a patient include: Hostility or abusive behavior toward the dentist, staff, or other patients Harassment or sexual abuse of dentist, staff, or other patients Repeatedly missing appointments Refusal to undergo recommended testing or treatment Lack of trust or confidence in the dentist’s abilities or recommendations Consistent failure to follow office policies Showing up to appointments under the influence of alcohol or drugs Refusing to adhere to infection-control precautions and policies, such as masking Nonpayment Patient Dismissal vs. Patient Abandonment A dentist who chooses to dismiss a patient can’t simply show them the door, send them a break-up text, or refuse to answer their calls. Dentists must end the relationship such that they avoid any claim that they have abandoned their patient. According to the ADA’s Principles of Ethics and Code of Professional Conduct Section 2.F.: Once a dentist has undertaken a course of treatment, the dentist should not discontinue that treatment without giving the patient adequate notice and the opportunity to obtain the services of another dentist. Care should be taken that the patient’s oral health is not jeopardized in the process. Patient abandonment is a serious ethical violation. For example, the Illinois Dental Practice Act lists “abandonment of a patient” as one of the many reasons the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation may revoke, suspend, refuse to issue or renew, reprimand, or take other disciplinary or non-disciplinary action against a dentist. A dentist also exposes themself to a malpractice claim if injuries result from their termination of the patient at the wrong time during the course of treatment or without proper notice. Best Practices For Terminating a Patient Relationship As noted, adequate notice, providing the patient an opportunity to find alternative care, and facilitating continuity of ongoing care are the keys to responsibly ending the dentist-patient relationship and avoiding a claim of abandonment. We suggest that dentists take the following steps to minimize the likelihood of any disputes or claims arising from the termination of the relationship: provide written notice to the patient, preferably by certified mail; provide the patient with the reasons for terminating the relationship; offer to continue treatment and access to services for a reasonable period (such as 30 days) to allow the patient to secure another dentist’s services; state that you will provide emergency services for a designated period; help the patient locate another dentist; and offer to transfer the patient’s records to a new dentist and/or advise the patient of their right to obtain a copy of their records for a fee. Additionally, a dentist experiencing issues with a patient should contemporaneously document all communications, incidents, statements, or behavior suggesting a breakdown in the relationship. Of course, while a dentist can control how they handle the end of a patient relationship, they can’t control how the patient will react to being “dumped.” Even when the dentist acts professionally and cordially, as they should, there is no guarantee that the patient will do the same. If a patient responds with hostility or anger, tread carefully and do not respond in kind. Contact Us With Any Questions or Concerns If you have any questions or concerns about ending a patient relationship, please give us a call. At Grogan, Hesse & Uditsky, P.C., we focus a substantial part of our practice on providing exceptional legal services for dentists and dental practices, as well as orthodontists, periodontists, endodontists, pediatric dentists, and oral surgeons. We bring unique insights and deep commitment to protecting the interests of dental professionals and their practices and welcome the opportunity to work with you. Please call us at (630) 833-5533 or contact us online to arrange for your free initial consultation. Jordan Uditsky, an accomplished businessman and seasoned attorney, combines his experience as a legal counselor and successful entrepreneur to advise dentists and other business owners in the Chicago area. Jordan grew up in a dental family, with his father, grandfather, and sister each owning their own dental practices, and this blend of legal, business, and personal experience provides Jordan with unique insight into his clients’ needs, concerns, and goals.
Show More
By Jordan Uditsky April 15, 2026
How Defining Your Goals Will Shape Your Dental Practice’s Business Succession Plan
By Jordan Uditsky April 2, 2026
How Buy-Sell Agreements Determine the Success of Your Transition
A doctor is sitting at a desk talking to a patient.
By Jordan Uditsky March 9, 2026
Most relationships, whether personal or professional, start with a certain level of mutual trust and respect, compatibility, and shared goals and priorities. But those characteristics don’t always last, and a once-promising partnership can devolve into disputes, distrust, or outright hostility. The dentist-patient relationship is not immune to such deterioration. There may come a day when the differences between a dentist and their patient make continued treatment undesirable or impractical. A patient, of course, is free to call it quits with their dentist at any time, or the patient and dentist can mutually agree to part ways. But when a dentist wants to stop treating a problematic or disruptive patient and terminate the relationship, things can be a bit stickier. It is crucial that a dentist handles the break-up carefully and in accordance with the law and ethical standards so as to avoid claims of patient abandonment that could threaten their professional license or expose them to liability. Are you interested in speaking with one of our attorneys? Click here to contact us now. Dentists Have a Right To Unilaterally Dismiss a Patient For Reasonable Cause As a preliminary matter, dentists may choose to responsibly end their relationship with a patient for any reasonable, legally permissible cause. As the American Dental Association (ADA) guidelines put it: The dentist has the right to dismiss a patient in situations where it is impossible to resolve differences or if the dentist cannot abide the patient’s behavior within the practice, as long as the dismissal is not for a legally impermissible discriminatory reason. Accordingly, a dentist may not end a patient relationship because of the patient’s race, religion, gender, color, age, national origin, disability, or other characteristics protected by federal and state anti-discrimination laws. Notably, political opinions are not a protected characteristic under the law. Common reasons a dentist may justifiably terminate a patient include: Hostility or abusive behavior toward the dentist, staff, or other patients Harassment or sexual abuse of dentist, staff, or other patients Repeatedly missing appointments Refusal to undergo recommended testing or treatment Lack of trust or confidence in the dentist’s abilities or recommendations Consistent failure to follow office policies Showing up to appointments under the influence of alcohol or drugs Refusing to adhere to infection-control precautions and policies, such as masking Nonpayment Patient Dismissal vs. Patient Abandonment A dentist who chooses to dismiss a patient can’t simply show them the door, send them a break-up text, or refuse to answer their calls. Dentists must end the relationship such that they avoid any claim that they have abandoned their patient. According to the ADA’s Principles of Ethics and Code of Professional Conduct Section 2.F.: Once a dentist has undertaken a course of treatment, the dentist should not discontinue that treatment without giving the patient adequate notice and the opportunity to obtain the services of another dentist. Care should be taken that the patient’s oral health is not jeopardized in the process. Patient abandonment is a serious ethical violation. For example, the Illinois Dental Practice Act lists “abandonment of a patient” as one of the many reasons the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation may revoke, suspend, refuse to issue or renew, reprimand, or take other disciplinary or non-disciplinary action against a dentist. A dentist also exposes themself to a malpractice claim if injuries result from their termination of the patient at the wrong time during the course of treatment or without proper notice. Best Practices For Terminating a Patient Relationship As noted, adequate notice, providing the patient an opportunity to find alternative care, and facilitating continuity of ongoing care are the keys to responsibly ending the dentist-patient relationship and avoiding a claim of abandonment. We suggest that dentists take the following steps to minimize the likelihood of any disputes or claims arising from the termination of the relationship: provide written notice to the patient, preferably by certified mail; provide the patient with the reasons for terminating the relationship; offer to continue treatment and access to services for a reasonable period (such as 30 days) to allow the patient to secure another dentist’s services; state that you will provide emergency services for a designated period; help the patient locate another dentist; and offer to transfer the patient’s records to a new dentist and/or advise the patient of their right to obtain a copy of their records for a fee. Additionally, a dentist experiencing issues with a patient should contemporaneously document all communications, incidents, statements, or behavior suggesting a breakdown in the relationship. Of course, while a dentist can control how they handle the end of a patient relationship, they can’t control how the patient will react to being “dumped.” Even when the dentist acts professionally and cordially, as they should, there is no guarantee that the patient will do the same. If a patient responds with hostility or anger, tread carefully and do not respond in kind. Contact Us With Any Questions or Concerns If you have any questions or concerns about ending a patient relationship, please give us a call. At Grogan, Hesse & Uditsky, P.C., we focus a substantial part of our practice on providing exceptional legal services for dentists and dental practices, as well as orthodontists, periodontists, endodontists, pediatric dentists, and oral surgeons. We bring unique insights and deep commitment to protecting the interests of dental professionals and their practices and welcome the opportunity to work with you. Please call us at (630) 833-5533 or contact us online to arrange for your free initial consultation. Jordan Uditsky, an accomplished businessman and seasoned attorney, combines his experience as a legal counselor and successful entrepreneur to advise dentists and other business owners in the Chicago area. Jordan grew up in a dental family, with his father, grandfather, and sister each owning their own dental practices, and this blend of legal, business, and personal experience provides Jordan with unique insight into his clients’ needs, concerns, and goals.
Show More