Capping a Personal Guarantee on a Growing Team's New Lease

The situation

Jae-won built a real estate team from the ground up, starting alone and growing it into an operation bringing in somewhere between $1 million and $5 million a year in commission revenue. The team had outgrown its shared workspace and needed a real office in Orleans, with room for a boardroom, private offices for senior agents, and desk space for the administrative staff who kept transactions moving. After months of touring buildings, Jae-won found a mid-rise commercial building near the main commercial strip with a five-year lease on offer at a workable rate.

The landlord's leasing manager, Ji-ho, sent over a letter of intent followed by a full lease agreement about two weeks later. Jae-won read through the business terms — rent, term, permitted use, renewal options — and they looked reasonable. Buried in the later pages, though, was a personal guarantee clause requiring Jae-won to personally backstop the company's obligations under the lease for its full five-year term, with no dollar cap and no mechanism to ever release it. Jae-won's spouse, Hanna, who works as a court clerk and had no role in the business, was also named on the guarantee as a joint and several guarantor.

Jae-won brought the lease to Treadstone Law before signing, wanting to know whether the guarantee terms were normal, and if not, what could realistically be done about them.

What the review found

A personal guarantee on a commercial lease is a promise, made by an individual rather than the company, to personally cover the tenant's obligations if the company defaults. Commercial landlords ask for them routinely, especially from smaller or newer tenants without an established credit history, because a numbered company can be dissolved or left with no assets if things go wrong, leaving the landlord with an empty judgment. A personal guarantee gives the landlord a real person's income, savings, and home equity to pursue instead.

Guarantees exist on a spectrum. Some are capped at a fixed dollar amount or a set number of months' rent. Some step down or disappear entirely once the tenant has paid on time for a defined stretch, often called a burn-off or sunset provision. Others are uncapped and run for the entire lease term, meaning the guarantor could, in a worst case, be on the hook for every month of unpaid rent for the full five years plus the landlord's costs of re-renting the space. This lease used the uncapped, full-term version — the version that exposes the most personal risk and the version landlords are most willing to negotiate away from, because they know it is the version tenants push back on hardest.

Two things stood out as particularly worth challenging. First, the guarantee had no cap, meaning a default in year four could theoretically expose Jae-won to years of remaining rent obligations rather than a fixed, knowable number. Second, Hanna's inclusion made no commercial sense: Hanna held no ownership interest in the business, drew no income from it, and had no ability to influence whether the company paid its rent. Landlords sometimes ask for a spouse's signature as a matter of habit or template, not because it adds meaningful security, and it is often the easiest item to remove because removing it costs the landlord nothing.

The lease also required the tenant to carry a level of commercial general liability insurance and to obtain the landlord's consent before any assignment or subletting, both standard terms, but worth flagging because an assignment clause that is too restrictive can trap a growing business in space it later outgrows, unable to hand the lease to a suitable replacement tenant.

What we did

1. Benchmarked the guarantee against what landlords in the market typically accept. An uncapped, full-term, joint guarantee sits at the far end of what is negotiable. Framing the ask as a request to move toward a common middle ground, rather than to remove the guarantee outright, made it easier for Ji-ho to bring to the landlord as a reasonable compromise rather than a rejection.
2. Drafted a capped guarantee provision. Instead of an open-ended promise, the proposed language limited Jae-won's personal exposure to a fixed dollar amount equal to roughly eighteen months of base rent, with the cap stated as a specific number rather than a formula, so there was no ambiguity about the maximum at stake.
3. Added a burn-off mechanism. The proposal included a clause releasing the guarantee entirely once the company had paid rent on time for twenty-four consecutive months, on the reasoning that two years of clean payment history is a reasonable point at which a landlord's risk has meaningfully dropped and the personal backstop has done its job.
4. Requested Hanna's release from the guarantee altogether. Because Hanna had no operational or financial connection to the business, we argued there was no commercial rationale for a second guarantor with a court clerk's income backing a company generating millions in revenue, and asked that the guarantee run against Jae-won alone.
5. Reviewed the assignment and subletting clause and proposed a modest loosening. The original wording let the landlord withhold consent for any reason. We proposed the more standard formulation requiring consent not to be unreasonably withheld, which still protects the landlord's interest in who occupies the building while giving the tenant a realistic path to hand off the lease if the team ever needed to relocate or wind down.
6. Prepared Jae-won for what the landlord would likely want in return. Landlords rarely give up negotiating points for nothing, and the honest advice was that some value would need to move back the other way, most likely in the form of rent or deposit terms, to make the guarantee changes an easy yes rather than a fight.

The outcome

Ji-ho took the proposed changes to the landlord, and the response came back about ten days later as a genuine negotiation rather than a flat refusal. The landlord agreed to cap the guarantee at roughly $95,000, close to the eighteen months of base rent originally proposed, and accepted the twenty-four-month burn-off clause largely as drafted. The landlord also agreed to release Hanna from the guarantee entirely, accepting the point that a second, financially unconnected guarantor added little real security.

The trade-off was on rent. The landlord asked for, and received, an increase of a few dollars per square foot over the originally quoted rate, phased in from the second year of the term, along with a first month's rent deposit that was larger than what had first been proposed. Over the five-year term this added a modest amount to the company's total occupancy cost — nowhere near the roughly $315,000 five-year exposure the original uncapped guarantee could have created in a genuine default scenario, but a real, ongoing cost nonetheless. The assignment clause was also only partly moved: the landlord agreed to the reasonableness standard but kept the right to reject an assignment to a competing brokerage operating in the same building, a carve-out that was narrow enough to accept.

Jae-won signed the lease with the capped, single-guarantor, time-limited guarantee in place. It was not a win on every point — the rent increase was real, and the guarantee did not disappear, only shrank and gained an expiry — but it converted an open-ended personal risk into a known, bounded, and eventually removable one, while keeping Hanna's income and the family home entirely out of the picture. Both sides had something they could point to as a fair outcome: the landlord kept meaningful security for the first two years of the tenancy, and Jae-won kept a ceiling on how much of that security could ever come out of personal assets.

What you can learn from this