Epstein Secrets

er, on the following issues: (1) whether the lease unambiguously required that OFM's consent to an assignment or sublet be in writing, in which case Massey could not have orally consented, as a matter of law, to Epstein's sublet of the Premises to Fisher, (2) whether OFM was permitted under the lease to

bate" as to whether federal or state law applies to the interpretation of a lease to which the Government is a party. Id. at 990-91. FN5. While the Forman court stated that federal law governs in landlord-tenant disputes involving the Government, it nevertheless relied on state law cases in interpretin

one hand, the Federal Circuit has held that federal law applies to resolve disputes between the United States and its lessors or tenants. See, e.g., Forman v. United States, 767 F.2d 875, 879-80 (Fed.Cir.1985); [FN5] Kelley v. United States, 19 CI.Ct. 155, 162 (1989). On the other hand, the Seventh Cir

er, on the following issues: (1) whether the lease unambiguously required that OFM's consent to an assignment or sublet be in writing, in which case Massey could not have orally consented, as a matter of law, to Epstein's sublet of the Premises to Fisher, (2) whether OFM was permitted under the lease to

bate" as to whether federal or state law applies to the interpretation of a lease to which the Government is a party. Id. at 990-91. FNS. While the Forman court stated that federal law governs in landlord-tenant disputes involving the Government, it nevertheless relied on state law cases in interpretin

one hand, the Federal Circuit has held that federal law applies to resolve disputes between the United States and its lessors or tenants. See, e.g., Forman I United States, 767 F.2d 875, 879-80 (Fed.Cir.1985); [FN5] Kelley I United States, 19 CI.Ct. 155, 162 (1989). On the other hand, the Seventh Circu

on the following issues: (1) whether the lease unambiguously re- quired that OFM's consent to an assignment or sublet be in writing, in which case Massey could not have orally consented, as a matter of law, to Epstein's sublet of the Premises to Fisher, (2) whether OFM was permitted un- der the leas

tions involving real property rights are de- plies to the interpretation of a lease to which the Government is a party. Id. at 990-91. 5. While the Forman court stated that federal law governs in landlord-tenant disputes involving the Government, it nevertheless relied on state law cases in interpret

hand, the Federal Circuit has held that federal law applies to resolve disputes between the Unit- ed States and its lessors or tenants. See. e.g., Forman I United States, 767 F.2d 875, 879-80 (Fed. ir.1985); 6 Kelley United State* 19 CI.Ct. 155, 162 (1989). On the other hand, the Seventh Circuit h

r, on the following issues: (1) whether the lease unambiguously required that OFM's consent to an assignment or sublet be in writing, in which case Massey could not have orally consented, as a matter of law, to Epstein's sublet of the Premises to Fisher, (2) whether OFM was permitted under the lease to

ate" as to whether federal or state law applies to the interpretation of a lease to which the Government is a party. Id. at 990-91. FNS. While the Forman court stated that federal law governs in landlord-tenant disputes involving the Government, it nevertheless relied on state law cases in interpreti