Daily Development for Tuesday, April 20, 2004
by: Patrick A. Randolph, Jr.
Elmer F. Pierson Professor of Law
UMKC School of Law
Of Counsel: Blackwell Sanders Peper Martin Kansas City, Missouri dirt@umkc.edu
ESCROWS; INSTRUCTIONS: Where escrow instructions do not compel escrow agent to
deliver earnest money to seller upon buyer’s default, but simply state that
agent shall hold monies “for the mutual benefit of the parties,” broker/escrow
agent had no authority to release funds to seller without buyer’s consent even
where it is apparent that the buyer has not closed and no contingencies remain
to be satisfied, notwithstanding the fact that the contract supports seller’s
claim to the earnest money as liquidated damages upon buyer’s failure to
perform.
International Capital Corp. V. Moyer, 2004 WL 438976 (3/10/04) (not yet released
for publication.)
Broker showed property to seller, which entered into a contract to buy. The case
does not make clear what agency relationship the broker had with any of the
parties. The contract provided that earnest money would be forfeited as
liquidated damages should buyer fail to close. The parties agreed, upon the
urging of the broker, that the broker would serve as escrow of the earnest
money. The contract provided simply that the broker would hold the earnest money
as escrow “for the mutual benefit of the parties.”
Over time, buyer, which was trying to put together an investment group, asked
for a number of extensions, each time increasing the amount of the escrow. In
letters relating to these extensions, it stated that the money in the escrow was
not to be released without its consent.
Ultimately, the final extension period ran out and buyer had not closed,
although it still was trying to put together its investors. Seller was tolerant
of this for a while, but ultimately found another buyer and pressed the broker
to release to it the earnest money, as the time for closing had long since
passed and there were no contingencies to buyer’s duty to close. Broker,
concluding that the seller had a right to the money under the terms of the
contract, transferred the money to seller, even though broker new that buyer
would object and intended that the earnest money not be transferred without its
prior consent.
Buyer sued for breach of fiduciary duty, and the trial court held for the
defendant broker and ordered restoration of the money to the buyer from the
broker.. (Broker had an indemnification agreement from the seller.) The appeals
court here affirmed that the release of the monies was wrongful, but remanded on
the question of damages. As to the latter point, the court concluded that if
indeed the seller was entitled to the earnest money under the contract, then the
buyer suffered no damages as a consequence of the release (except possibly a
small amount of interest, because ultimately a court would have order the
release anyway.
The court noted that the earnest money agreement and the sale agreement are
separate. Where no contract requires otherwise, the buyer is free to require
that, even if in fact he owes the earnest money as liquidated damages, the court
make such a determination, and not the escrow agent. That was the case here. The
buyer had signed no agreement providing for the forfeiture of the earnest money,
and in fact had made a point of maintaining that it objected to any such release
by the escrowee/broker. The reason for this was not to resist the forfeiture so
much as to keep the deal alive so that the broker could continue efforts to put
together its own investment group.
The court ruled that although the escrowee acted wrongfully in releasing the
funds, it would remand to the trial court for a reevaluation of the damages
remedy. It noted that if indeed that seller stood to forfeit the earnest money
when a court reviewed the question, then the buyer had suffered very little
damages by the forfeiture. Here, it appeared that there were no excuses and the
buyer really did stand to forfeit, so the court remanded for a redetermination
of the damages.
Comment 1: If the broker had not released the escrow monies, there might not
have been another sale. Those monies may have been critical to make the deal.
The result would be that the buyer would have had a bit longer to put together
its own deal, and might have succeeded. And the seller may have agreed to go
along, even though it didn’t have to. So it’s not a bit clear to the editor that
the damages need to be redetermined. But we don’t know enough about the other
deal.
Comment 2: So the sloppy escrow agent may have dodged a bullet here. It won’t
always be that easy. Most lawyers advise escrow agents caught in this pickle:
“When in doubt, interplead.” You don’t need agreement to interpleader in advance
to use the remedy. You just have to be a stakeholder of a disputed stake.
But the real problem here likely arose from the fact that the “pressure” brought
by the seller was that the broker would lose important business relationships if
he didn’t cooperate. The story is the same one that I’ve been reiterating for a
few years on this list - people make big mistakes when they become escrows as
accommodations to important clients. Sooner or later the clients will want
favorable treatment from “their” agent. The cost of not giving that favorable
treatment is loss of important business contacts. The best way to avoid paying
that cost is not to get into the escrow business at all. Clients ought to be
brought to understand ethical responsibilities and fiduciary duties. If they go
off and find others less scrupulous, it’s a bitter pill, but that’s what we call
professionalism. Personally, I don’t find it too offensive if the client later,
in the country club locker room, says: “ I had to stop using X, X insists on
ethics and honesty. I can’t afford that
.” Others who listen will conclude that’s exactly what they want.
Comment 3: Further, lesson 1 of escrows is “get clear instructions.” Even if the
broker chose to ignore all the other lessons set forth above, it should have
heeded this one.
Items reported here and in the ABA publications are for general information
purposes only and should not be relied upon in the course of representation or
in the forming of decisions in legal matters. The same is true of all commentary
provided by contributors to the DIRT list. Accuracy of data and opinions
expressed are the sole responsibility of the DIRT editor and are in no sense the
publication of the ABA.
Parties posting messages to DIRT are posting to a source that is readily
accessible by members of the general public, and should take that fact into
account in evaluating confidentiality issues.
ABOUT DIRT:
DIRT is an internet discussion group for serious real estate professionals.
Message volume varies, but commonly runs 5 15 messages per work day.
Daily Developments are posted every work day. To subscribe, send the message
subscribe Dirt [your name]
to
listserv@listserv.umkc.edu
To cancel your subscription, send the message signoff DIRT to the address:
listserv@listserv.umkc.edu
for information on other commands, send the message Help to the listserv
address.
DIRT has an alternate, more extensive coverage that includes not only commercial
and general real estate matters but also focuses specifically upon residential
real estate matters. Because real estate brokers generally find this service
more valuable, it is named “BrokerDIRT.” But residential specialist attorneys,
title insurers, lenders and others interested in the residential market will
want to subscribe to this alternative list. If you subscribe to BrokerDIRT, it
is not necessary also to subscribe to DIRT, as BrokerDIRT carries all DIRT
traffic in addition to the residential discussions.
To subscribe to BrokerDIRT, send the message
subscribe BrokerDIRT [your name]
to
listserv@listserv.umkc.edu
To cancel your subscription to BrokerDIRT, send the message signoff BrokerDIRT
to the address:
listserv@listserv.umkc.edu
DIRT is a service of the American Bar Association Section on Real Property,
Probate & Trust Law and the University of Missouri, Kansas City, School of Law.
Daily Developments are copyrighted by Patrick A. Randolph, Jr., Professor of
Law, UMKC School of Law, but Professor Randolph grants permission for copying or
distribution of Daily Developments for educational purposes, including
professional continuing education, provided that no charge is imposed for such
distribution and that appropriate credit is given to Professor Randolph, DIRT,
and its sponsors.
DIRT has a WebPage at:
http://cctr.umkc.edu/dept/dirt/
-----
To be removed from this mailing list, send an email message to
listserv@listserv.umkc.edu with the text SIGNOFF FINANCE.
Please email manager@listserv.umkc.edu if you run into any problems.
See <http://www.umkc.edu/is/cs/listserv/unsubscribing.htm> for more information.