Sprint’s Questionable Addition of Clearwire Antennas
July 27th, 2010 by sita Posted in cell sites, Clearwire, Sprint PCS, sublease | 1 Comment »A client we represent had a Sprint construction crew show up at their doorstep to perform what they called “standard maintenance”. It was a sizeable construction crew and they never notified the landowner prior to showing up. Our client wisely prevented the crew from entering the site at that time- stating that they had the right to do regular maintenance but not modifcation of the existing cell site. The Sprint agent tried to tell the client that they were legally entitled to the modifications.
Upon further investigation, Sprint was actually trying to sublease space on the roof to Clearwire without telling our client. They never mentioned until pushed that the maintenance actually included adding 3 microwave dishes and a cabinet on the roof. This wasn’t a impulsive decision by Sprint- when we asked they provided construction drawings and a structural analysis for the roof, both of which they had no intentions to provide to the owner.
In reviewing the lease, we found that Sprint had the right to sublease but they did not have the right to add the equipment as the agent had suggested. We immediately contacted the agent and sent a letter stating that they would be in breach of the lease agreement if they proceeded after delineating the specific reasons for our objection.
Sprint’s tone changed pretty quickly and they are now willing to negotiate an amendment.
The purpose of relating this story is that it represents a change in how Sprint and Clearwire are acting in relationship to each other. Previously, Clearwire would have directly approached the landowner to negotiate a second lease. Now, they have obviously worked out their differences and as a result are trying to add Clearwire equipment to a rooftop without telling the property owner. In these situations, it is crucial that you understand what your lease allows Sprint to do and what it doesn’t. Since these issues are primarily technical ones, you should find an attorney who understands the technical limitations of the underlying lease agreement. For more information on cell tower subleases, please see Cell Site Subleases.
Global Signal Sprint sublease questioned in IL Court
July 17th, 2007 by admin Posted in cell phone tower lease, cell tower ground lease, eminent domain, Global Signal, Oak Forest, Sprint PCS, sublease | No Comments »In late 2005, Global Signal announced the lease of 6600 Sprint towers and the sublease back of the towers by Sprint. One of the questions that we pondered during that time was how this lease would be interpreted if the underlying ground lease between the ground owner and Sprint prohibited subleasing. In a number of cases, Global Signal’s response was to simply craft a site management agreement and not sublease the tower.
Fortunately, it appears that we will soon find out. Oak Forest, IL has sued Sprint PCS over the alleged improper sublease of the tower to Global Signal, claiming that the sublease violated their underlying lease agreement. One of the other questions we pondered was whether there was any damage to the landowner by allowing Global Signal to sublease the tower. In effect, all Global Signal was doing was taking the place of Sprint in managing the tower. If the underlying cell tower ground lease prohibited subleasing, Global Signal could not sublease space on the tower without Oak Forest’s consent.
Oak Forest could argue that by subleasing to Global Signal, that now there were two companies that need access to the cell tower. But really is the burden any greater?
Either way, it really does not appear that this suit was motivated by the “damage” from the unauthorized sublease. Oak Forest is developing a mixed use development where the cell tower sits- and negotiations on the voluntary removal of the tower weren’t moving fast enough. Rather than use eminent domain to “take” the cell tower and compensate Global Signal, the city simply sued for breach of the lease. Having assisted a number of municipal clients navigate through the issue of eminent domain and cell towers, Steel in the Air has found that many municipalities are poorly informed about the cost of relocation of a cell tower.
The legal question here is whether or not the City was actually damaged, and if so, if removal and forfeiture of the tower is an equitable solution to the issue. That will be for the court to decide, if this actually isn’t settled prior to the court hearing arguments.