DD 2/24/10 Optionor under right of refusal can eliminate optionee by tendering a deal for property in addition to the original property and conditions that increase the price tenfold (?)(!)

Daily Development for Wednesday, February 24, 2010
by: Patrick A. Randolph, Jr.
Elmer F. Pierson Professor of Law
UMKC School of Law
Of Counsel: Husch Blackwell Sanders
Kansas City, Missouri
dirt@umkc.edu

OPTIONS; RIGHTS OF REFUSAL; SCOPE OF RIGHT: Despite rule that an optionee under a right of first refusal may not tender to the optionor an offer to purchase more than the subject property, thereby frustrating optionor’s rights, a Texas Appeals court has held that a party with land subject to a right of refusal may tender to the optionee and offer to acquire all of the personal property on the land and the personal and real propeerty owned by optionor at another location as a condition of exercising its rights, even though the likely value of the property subject to the right is only about 7.6% of the overall price being demanded.

FWT, Inc. Haskin Wallace Mason Property Management, L.L.P. , 2009 WL 4114140 (Tex. App. 11/25/2009) (on rehearing), petition for appeal filed 1/10/10. 

A petition for appeal has been filed in this case and the editor believes, if there is "right and justice" in the Texas legal system, this petition will be granted and the case reversed.  But it is so amazing that a panel of the Texas Court of Appeals would rule as it did that the editor notes the case anyway.

FWT owned a vacant six acre parcel that it sold to HWM.  The transaction included a right of first refusal in FWT, stating:

“In the event Grantee desires to sell, leaese or otherwise convey all or any part of the Property and shall have a bona fide offer from a third party . . . then Grantee shall furnish to Grantor written notice of the name of the prospective purchase and the terms and conditions of such offer. . . . Grantor shall have 20 days after receipt of the notice in which to elect to purchase, lease or otherwise accept such conveyance . . . at the same price and under the same terms and conditions offered by the prospective purchaser.”

HWM owned and operated a galvanizing plant through a corporate subsidiary in another city.  It proceeded to install a galvanizing plant on the subject parcel as well, owned and operated by another subsidiary.  Apparently the galvanizing plant and equipment consisted primarily of removable personal property.

Subsequently, another company submitted an offer to buy HWM’s personal property assets in both cities, acquire title to the land in the other location,  and to lease, with option to buy, the Subject Property that was the subject of the right of first refusal.  The total consideration (other than lease payments) that was to pass in cash to HWM was $16,500,000, with an additional $2.5 million if the lease option were later exercised.

HWM submitted this offer to FWT and argued that the”conditions” that the Buyer had placed upon its offer to lease/option the Subject property were not made for the purpose of frustrating FWT’s right of refusal (HWM argued that it expected FWT to waive that right for other reasons) and that the terms were commercially reasonable (the court doesn’t tell us why a requirement that two plants pass in same transaction is commercially reasonable.   Consequently, the court upheld a grant of summary judgment to HWM that FWT would lose its right of first refusal unless it came up with the total of over $19,000,000 (including the option price) to acquire these facilities.
The court invoked what appears to be a narrow and little used exception to the general rule that an optionor cannot eliminate a right of first refusal by agreeing to sell more than the property occupied by that right.  The exception states that if the conditions imposed on the sale to the third party are not made to frustrate the refusal right, made in good faith, and commercially reasonable, the optionee must meet those conditions.  But the precedent cases cited by the court are nothing like this case.  In one precedent case, the condition was that the FTC approve the transfer of an oil pipeline right.  In another, the conditions were granting a buyer’s commission and including one-year employment rights for certain key employees of an optician’s office. In both cases, of course, the basic substance of the sale tendered to the holder of the refusal right was the same asset that the optionee had bargained over.  But in the instant case, it would appear, the property subject to a r
ight of refusal is only a small portion of a huge and expensive business acquisition. 

Comment 1: All prior postings on DIRT on this subject reiterate the rule that one can’t “oversell” property subject to a right of refusal.  The extensive case law cited in Friedman on Leases (Randolph edition) at Section 15.6 is also consistent with this concept. 

Comment 2: It seems that the Texas court has permitted the exception to swallow the rule.  Although many deals involving property subject to a right of refusal combined with other property might make economic sense, this doesn’t mean that the right should be “sold out” to permit these deals to go ahead.  The mere fact that an outside offer is in good faith and not made to frustrate the refusal rights also are beside the point.  The first question we must ask is whether the optionee has a reasonable opportunity to match the offer on the property that was the subject of the right. 

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 or
individual contributors 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 to 15 messages per work day.
DIRT Developments are posted periodically, as supply dictates.

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, any substitute reporters, DIRT, and its sponsors.

All DIRT Developments, and scores of other cases, arranged topically, are reported in hardcopy form in the ABA Quarterly Report.  This is a limited subscription service, available to ABA Section Members, ACMA members and members of the NAR.   Qualified subscribers may Subscribe to this Report ($30 for Two Years) by Sending a Check to Ms. Bunny Lee, ABA Section on Real Property, Trust & Estate Law, 321 N. Clark Street, Chicago, Il 60610. Contact Bunny Lee  at (312) 988-5651, Leeb@staff.abanet.org   ABA members also can access prior and current editions of this report on the ABA RPTE section website.

DIRT has a WebPage at:
http://dirt.umkc.edu/

*************************************