Daily Development for Wednesday, November 23,
2005
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
VENDOR/PURCHASER; BUYER’S REMEDIES; SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE: A court need not enforce a contract in a way that would advance injustice or hardship, so it need not order specific performance for the sale of a home where a resident seller has become seriously ill; nonetheless, the recalcitrant seller is still liable to the buyer for damages.
Kilarjian v. Vastola, 379 N.J. Super. 277, 877 A.2d 372 (N.J. Super. 2004)
Homeowners entered into a contract for the sale of their property. The closing date was scheduled for June 15, 2004. On June 14, the seller's attorney wrote the buyer's attorney stating that the seller could not convey title. On June 15, the buyers' attorney sent a time of the essence letter, setting a closing date of June 25. The sellers were still unwilling to close. The contract did not have a liquidated damages clause or any other guide in the event the seller chose not to close. The buyers sued for specific performance. They also sought to be paid damages for financing costs incurred because of the delay.
The sellers argued that they intended to move out of their home, but then the wife's spinal muscular atrophy began to accelerate. They provided the court with a letter from their doctor, describing the illness, which had neither a cure nor an effective treatment. The doctor explained that the wife had become profoundly disabled and required help with all daily activities. The doctor also expressed concern that the proposed move would precipitate respiratory failure and could lead to the wife's death. That is why the sellers claimed that they could not fulfill the contract. They argued that when they entered into the contract, the wife was able to care for herself and was able to walk with braces, but by the time of the suit, she was confined to her wheelchair or her bed. The sellers also contended that the buyers were aware of the wife's deteriorating condition when the contract was signed and had ample time to find another home. Furthermore, they argued that they shou!
ld not
be
responsible for any increase in mortgage rates since they were in fact lower
than the rates the buyers had originally committed to pay.
The Court first held that since the buyers had properly made time of the essence and closing did not take place by the date indicated, they may have been entitled to specific performance. However, it pointed out that a contract's enforcement must not advance injustice or hardship. For that reason, the Court refused to evict the sellers because the wife's health had deteriorated so badly while the contract was pending, and they wished nothing more than to remain in her home during the most difficult days of her illness. Accordingly, the Court found that the sellers would suffer great hardship if the contract was enforced, and specific performance was not the appropriate remedy in this case. Although the Court denied the buyers' claim for specific performance, it ordered the buyers to submit documentation as to the interest rates on a subsequent mortgage if in fact the buyers went out and bought another property financed at a higher rate so that the Court could award those!
costs
accordingly.
Comment: No surprise here. Specific performance is normally available in real estate transactions, but it an equitable remedy and will not be granted when the remedy would cause undue hardship. This appears to have been a relatively clear case. Some of the hardship could have been avoided by the buyers, as they had knowledge of the circumstances, and the hardship on sellers is serious.
But the fact that specific performance is not awarded does not mean that damages or similar remedies are avoided. Further, if the property is truly unique, it is possible that the buyers might have sought a future right of first refusal or option when the wife moves out of the home, for whatever reason, and still have a present right to damages. Likely this was not a practical remedy for them, but in the appropriate case a court should consider it.
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:
https://e2k.exchange.umkc.edu/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://cctr.umkc.edu/dept/dirt/
*************************************
Your e-mail address will only be used within the ABA and its entities. We do not sell or rent e-mail addresses to anyone outside the ABA.
To change your e-mail address or remove your name from any future general distribution e-mails you can call us at 1-800-285-2221, or write to: American Bar Association, Service Center, 321 N Clark Street, Floor 16, Chicago, IL 60610
If you are an ABA member, log in to the ABA Web site at https://e2k.exchange.umkc.edu/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://www.abanet.org/abanet/common/MyABA/home.cfm to edit your member profile. Otherwise, complete the form located at https://e2k.exchange.umkc.edu/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=https://www.abanet.org/members/join/coa2.html
To review our privacy statement, go to https://e2k.exchange.umkc.edu/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://www.abanet.org/privacy_statement.html.
If you have any problems, please contact the list owner
at
dirt-dd-request@mail.abanet.org.