Our community bank has given us three months of interest only. We own no real estate but he said the are differing principal and interest for three months for their commercial properties that are performing well. Every landlord has different financing but some are certainly getting modifications from their lenders.
I found this: Force Majeure and the Frustration Doctrine. If the frustration doctrine is interposed as a defense to breach of contract, California courts will look at the contract and business transaction to discern the fundamental purpose or reason underlying the contract/transaction and at the claimed unanticipated supervening circumstances to determine if they have “substantially destroyed” the purpose of the contract/transaction for both parties to the contract. Thus, to prove the defense, the party asserting frustration must prove that The frustration was so severe and harsh that the basic purpose of the contract was destroyed The supervening circumstance/event was unforeseen and not the fault of one of the parties The frustration was of the type not regarded as within the risks that were assumed under the contract and The frustration was recognized by both parties to the contract (that is, both parties’ purposes were frustrated) In general, the frustration excuse will be available only if both parties are still performing. If one party has fully performed, the frustration excuse will not be allowed. Frustration of purpose is also rarely available if one side to the contract has only the obligation of payment. As an example, if the contract is for the supply of raw materials, if one party has paid, frustration of purpose is not a possible defense, but impossibility might be (if the raw materials cannot be obtained any more).