ROFRs and Options

Ben Jarvis and Calvin Smith jointly owned a 12-acre parcel in Smith County, Texas. Jarvis owned 2/3^rds; Smith owned 1/3^rd. In Texas law this made them ‘cotenants.’

In 1998 the parties negotiated a partition of the property, with the added requirement that Jarvis would receive an option to buy Smith’s parcel should he elect to sell it. Jarvis and Smith exchanged deeds to divide the property into 8-acre and 4-acre tracts. And Smith signed a notarized document granting to Jarvis an option to buy Smith’s parcel.

The document provided that if Smith decided to sell it and received an acceptable offer, Smith would submit the offer to Jarvis who had 30 days to accept it and then purchase the property on the same terms. Someone – presumably Jarvis – had the foresight to record it in the Smith County Deed Records.

In December 2007 Smith entered into a contract to sell his 4-acre piece to Robert Peltier for $80,000. Smith signed a Deed to Peltier the following month when the deal closed. The title commitment issued to Peltier prior to closing provided that the parcel was burdened by the instrument that Smith had signed.

So clearly Robert Peltier knew (or should have known) of the pre-existing rights of Jarvis. But Peltier bought it anyway.

It took two more years for Jarvis to learn that the parcel had been sold. Immediately on discovery, he sent both Smith and Peltier a letter attempting to exercise his option. In his letter he asked for a copy of the Closing Statement, cancelled check and title policy “. . . before declining or accepting any offer.” That statement followed the one in which he wrote “At this time, I would like to exercise the option.”

Yes those two statements seem inconsistent. But stay tuned and you’ll find out what Jarvis was really trying to say.

When neither Smith nor Peltier sent Jarvis the intel he requested, Jarvis filed suit against both of them. The trial court granted judgment for Smith and Peltier. Jarvis appealed.

The Court of Appeals looked hard at the document Smith signed. Jarvis contended that it gave him a right of first refusal, meaning, if Smith decided to sell the property then Smith was required to allow Jarvis the opportunity to buy it on the same terms as offered by the purchaser. In other words, a preemptive right. We know it as a “ROFR.”

Peltier and Smith argued, however, that Jarvis was furnished an option, being a privilege that the owner grants to another to buy the piece at a fixed price and at a definite time. And that Jarvis failed to properly and timely exercise his option because he did not send unconditional notice of the exercise within 30 days after he learned of the sale.

Jarvis responded that he did everything he could to find out the purchase price within the 30-day period, but neither Peltier nor Smith would give him the data he needed to make the final decision and remove the condition. Ultimately, Jarvis said, he was able to learn the purchase price only by filing a lawsuit and conducting discovery.

The Court of Appeals evaluated the differences between a ROFR and an option and concluded that Jarvis was the beneficiary of a lawful ROFR. Jarvis was not required to unconditionally exercise the ROFR when the purchase price was neither apparent nor forthcoming. The Court of Appeals concluded that the trial court erroneously granted judgment for Peltier and Smith.

The judgment for Peltier and Smith was reversed. Jarvis had an enforceable ROFR. Ben Jarvis wins. Robert Peltier and Calvin Smith lose.

See Jarvis v. Peltier; No 12-12-00180-CV; Texas 12^th Court of Appeals, April 24, 2013.

Lessons learned:

1.      It can be difficult to draft an enforceable ROFR, ROFO (right of first option) and other similar agreements. Look here if you want more info on the differences between the two: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_first_refusal. We use those concepts in both leasing and contracting for the purchase and sale of property.

2.      It can also be challenging to properly preserve and exercise a ROFR or ROFO.

3.      Jarvis was smart to record his ROFR in the Smith County Deed Records. In doing so, he preserved recourse against future buyers and lenders of Calvin Smith.

Reprinted with the permission of North Texas Commercial Association of REALTORS®, Inc.

For Sale Cheap – 545 Acres in Wood County

In November 2003 William Earl Norris and Martha Sue Norris decided to sell their farm to Eleanor Fox Davis. William and Martha signed not one, not two, but three – count ‘em three – contracts, all with Eleanor.

In the first contract M/M Norris agreed to sell 215 acres to Ms. Davis. Davis also had the right to acquire more acreage from M/M Norris, being the remainder of the 545-acre farm. In the second, Davis agreed to purchase 10 acres from Norris. The third contract was for approximately 210 acres. The parties closed on the second and third contracts, but left the first pending.

In 2006 Davis sent M/M Norris a letter announcing her intention to exercise the option in the first contract. Counsel for the Norris’ did not agree that Davis was entitled to purchase more property, and consequently M/M Norris did not appear at the time and place designated by Davis for closing.

Davis sued M/M Norris for specific performance or damages. Davis lost. Davis appealed.

The Texarkana Court of Appeals first stated that options must be clearly drafted and the purchaser must strictly comply. The Appellate Court concluded that the contract was unclear as to what, exactly, is required to exercise the option. This conclusion was based primarily on the handwritten statement in the contract that: “SELLER WILL HAVE 9 MONTHS NOTICE BEFORE BUYER WILL CLOSE,” coupled with some additional unclear provisions.

The handwritten clause followed a provision granting Davis “. . . an Option and First Right of Refusal until January 1, 2007 to purchase [the property].” But what is the correlation between the January 1, 2007 deadline and the 9-month notice provision? Must nine-month notice be issued before January 1, 2007, or must the closing be completed by January 1, 2007?

At the trial court M/M Norris won a summary judgment based on the single theory that Davis did not timely exercise the option. The Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the trial court, and remanded the case back to Wood County to figure out what the parties had contemplated to properly and timely exercise the purchase option.

See Davis v. Norris, 06-10-00093-CV, 6^th Court of Appeals, Texarkana; October 27, 2011.

Lessons learned:

1.  It appears that no brokers were involved. Thank goodness, since clearly all brokers and agents would have been sued.

2.  Option contracts are tricky. Do not draft option contracts, rights of first refusal, rights of first offer or anything similar, in contracts or leases. Or anywhere else for that matter. Even seasoned lawyers often make mistakes in this area.

3.  Review option language closely. Everything in an option provision must be spelled out with great particularity – timing, property description, pricing, review and due diligence periods, earnest monies or additional deposits, means by which notice must be furnished, title companies, closing documents, prorations, taxes, etc. Tricky stuff. Seriously.


Reprinted with the permission of North Texas Commercial Association of REALTORS®, Inc.