Home > Insights > Blogs > Tracking Cannabis > Arizona appellate court takes the high road and enforces a commercial lease to operate a medical marijuana dispensary

Arizona appellate court takes the high road and enforces a commercial lease to operate a medical marijuana dispensary

Jeff Brown May 10, 2017

In a case of first impression in Arizona, the Court of Appeals in Green Cross Medical Inc v Gally (April 18, 2017) held that a lease to operate a medical marijuana dispensary was not void from its inception, either under Arizona law or the federal Controlled Substances Act.

Gally is the owner of commercial property in Winslow, Arizona (see, The Eagles, “Take It Easy”). He entered into a lease with Green Cross to allow Green Cross to operate a medical marijuana dispensary. Less than two weeks after entering into the lease, landlord Gally’s lawyer sent a letter, revoking the lease. After initial skirmishes, the landlord argued that he was entitled to judgment as a matter of law because the lease was illegal and, therefore, unenforceable. The trial court entered judgment in favor of landlord Gally, holding that the lease violated both federal and state law, and was therefore void for illegality.

On appeal, the Court set forth: “The issue presented is whether a contract for the lease of real property to a party applying to operate a medical marijuana dispensary is void for illegality.”  First, the Court held that the lease was not illegal under Arizona law. The Court held that the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act (“AMMA”) protects the rights of dispensaries to enter into leases as long as they are in compliance with the AMMA.

The AMMA provides, in part, that a registered dispensary is 

not subject to prosecution ... and may not be denied any right or privilege ... by a court or ... entity, for acting pursuant to [the AMMA] and department regulations to acquire, possess, cultivate, manufacture, deliver, transfer, ... sell or dispense marijuana or related supplies ... to ... qualifying patients [or] ... designated caregivers.

The Court of Appeal held that a trial court may not void or refuse to enforce a dispensary’s lease with a landlord “simply because the dispensary would be supplying marijuana in compliance with the AMMA.” The Court, rejecting other arguments by the landlord under the AMMA, concluded:

We emphasize that nothing in the AMMA requires a landlord to rent a property to a proposed dispensary. Gally was free not to enter into the lease if he was uncomfortable with the proposed use of the Property. But once he chose to do so, he was not free to rescind his contractual commitments without facing potential monetary liability.

Accordingly, leasing property to a medical marijuana dispensary that is in compliance with the AMMA is not illegal under Arizona law.  

The Court then went on to discuss whether the lease could be enforced in view of the federal law. The Court recognized that the sale and use of marijuana for medical purposes is illegal under the federal Controlled Substances Act (“CSA”). However, “balancing the federal government’s interest in enforcing the CSA with Arizona’s interest in effectuating the AMMA leads us to conclude that the contract action seeking damages is not barred simply because the legal would violate the CSA.” In explaining its balancing of the interests, the Court explained that the federal policy of enforcement has been “in flux for years,” that the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) had instructed U.S. Attorneys not to prosecute persons acting in compliance with state medical marijuana laws, and that Congress had barred the DOJ from using funding to prosecute people using or distributing medical marijuana in compliance with state laws.

In a footnote, the Court recognized that the ban on using federal funds to enforce prohibitions against medical marijuana “might not survive into the next Congressional term. However, we cannot predict the future and must apply the law as it exists at the time we render our decision.” 

In the end, in view of the current enforcement policy of the federal government, the Court of Appeal held that the lease was enforceable, at least for purposes of a damages lawsuit for its breach.

Jeff Brown is a partner in the firm's litigation department with a practice that focuses on real estate. You can reach him at (310) 282-9418 or jbrown@thompsoncoburn.com.

Thompson Coburn advises clients on state laws governing the business of cannabis to facilitate compliance with those state laws. Federal laws concerning cannabis currently conflict with state laws in states that have legalized cannabis or possession of cannabis. Although federal enforcement policy may at times defer to these states’ laws and not enforce conflicting federal laws, interested businesses and individuals should be aware that compliance with state law in no way assures compliance with federal law, and there is a risk that conflicting federal laws may be enforced in the future. In addition to this Cannabis-specific note, readers should review Thompson Coburn’s Conditions of Use / Disclaimers page containing other important information.