Closing Extension SNAFU

On January 28, 2013, KIT Projects entered into a Contract to purchase real estate from PLT Partnership. Closing was initially scheduled for March 26, 2013. Then it was extended two days to March 28, 2013.
 
On March 28 Buyer did not have the funds to close, so Buyer asked Seller for an extension – until April 30, 2013. Both Seller and Buyer signed and delivered an extension Amendment. It provides “In consideration for this 30 day extension, Buyer agrees to pay an additional $10,000 extension fee directly to [Seller]. This fee is non-refundable and not applicable to the sales price.”

A check was delivered to Seller on March 28. Also delivered was a suggestion that the check was not good. So Seller told Buyer that the check could be held for a few days, to give Buyer an opportunity to fund the check.

The check was deposited on April 3. Seller signed the Amendment on April 4. The check bounced on April 8. Buyer never replaced the check with good funds, although Buyer offered to do so on April 9. 

In the afternoon of April 9 Seller delivered to Buyer a letter by email stating that “there is no existing contractual agreement” between the two parties.

Buyer asserted a lawsuit to force Seller to honor the terms of the Contract and sell the property to Buyer. Seller denied that it had breached the Contract, claiming that Seller had the right to terminate the Contract since the $10k check bounced. The trial court agreed with Seller.

Buyer appealed.

On appeal, Buyer asserted that the consideration for the amendment was Buyer’s promise to pay the $10k extension fee. Seller asserted that the consideration was the $10k payment. The difference in Texas law, is a covenant vs. a condition.

The Court of Appeals recast Seller’s argument as an assertion that the payment was a condition to the extension of the closing date. We call this a condition precedent in law.

To determine if a condition precedent existed, the Court looked hard at the amendment for terms such as provided that, on condition that, if _______, then ________ and similar.
 
If no such language is used, the terms will typically be a covenant. Not a condition. When a covenant is breached, the contract is valid but a party has a claim or lawsuit for damages. When a condition is breached, the entire contract may be forfeited.

Courts do not favor conditions as they tend to have unintended and overly harsh consequences.

This Court of Appeals had little difficulty determining that the language used was indicative of a covenant, not a condition. And yes there was still ample consideration although the check failed, as consideration “. . . may consist of a benefit to one party or of a detriment to the other party.”

The Court concluded that the consideration for the extension of the closing date was Buyer’s agreement to pay, rather than Buyer’s tender of lawful payment. The Judgment of the trial court is reversed. The case is remanded back to the trial court for a do-over, but with instructions to the trial court that the Amendment did not fail just because Buyer’s check was rubber.

See KIT Projects, LLC v. PLT Partnership; Cause No. 14-14-00118-CV; Texas Court of Appeals; 14^th District; November 19, 2015.

            Lessons learned:

1.      If the parties intend to be allowed to terminate a Contract based on non-performance, there must be consistent provisions.

2.      Typically a Seller or Landlord will prefer a condition for the Buyer or Tenant’s obligations, and a covenant for the Seller or Landlord’s duties. And of course vice versa when you are representing a Buyer or Tenant.

3.      Still confused? You are not alone. Be sure your principal has an experienced Texas real estate attorney who knows the difference.

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

Ipse Dixit!

DZM, Inc. leased retail space in a shopping mall to a tenant, to operate a poker room and social club. The tenant paid DZM rent from August 2005 to October 2005, but did not pay rental in November. So DZM changed the door locks.

Richie Garren asserted that he leased poker tables, chairs, poker supplies, electronics, decorations and other items to the social-club tenant for $1,000 per month. And that DZM effectively converted Garren’s property by changing door locks and refusing to return the items to Garren.

So Garren sued DZM. The jury determined that DZM had indeed converted Garren’s property, and awarded $12,500 in damages.

DZM appealed, not really to protest the issue of conversion, but instead to assert that the evidence was insufficient to prove an exact damages amount.

The appellate court found a recent Supreme Court case allowing a property owner to testify to its value. The owner in this unique situation doesn’t have to be a qualified expert to furnish an opinion. But rather the theory is that no one would know value better than the owner whose property was just wrongfully taken.

However, the owner’s testimony is judged by the same standards as expert testimony. States the court: “. . . an owner’s property valuation may not be based solely on the owner’s ipse dixit [emphasis in the original case opinion].”

Ipse dixit. Yes the court wrote that. You can’t make that up. My assumption is that all my loyal readers know the meaning. Well, for the one new reader who doesn’t (and yes I had to look it up too), I won’t keep you waiting: “he, himself, said it.”

That strikes yours truly as a rather arbitrary, dogmatic statement. Much like “well that’s just the way it has been so that’s the way it will be.” Sorta.

Anyway, back to the case. A property owner must provide the factual basis on which her / his opinion rests. It is not enough to simply claim “that’s what my stuff is worth because I just told you that’s why my stuff is worth."

Garren submitted some invoices and purchase receipts as indicia of fair market value. But this property was hardly new; it had been used by the poker room for some period of time. Evidently depreciation was not a factor, at least not to Garren anyway.

Because Garren was unable to furnish legally sufficient evidence that the property had any fair market value at the time of the conversion, the Judgment of the trial court was reversed. DZM, Inc. (real property landlord) wins; Richie Garren (personal property lessor) loses.

See DZM, Inc. v. Richie Garren; Cause No. 14-14-00040-CV; Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District - Houston; June 25, 2015.

Lessons learned:

1.  I offer much free advice at www.avvo.com. It’s my pro bono efforts. There are questions almost daily about property conversion. For those who have similar issues, this is an important case to understand that property valuations offered by the owner can be challenged.

2.  The NTCAR Expo is September 2 this year. I plan to make a new sign. Look for me there under the banner “IPSE DIXIT.”

3.  Practice Point: When you go home tonight, tell your spouse / significant other / dog IPSE DIXIT. Then send me an email and let me know how that went for you. I’m going to try it too. If there’s another Counsel Corner from me next month, I either lived or someone is ghost-writing.

4.  Bonus Lesson: ~ 10 years to litigate a case with a value of $12,500? Really?

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

Power of Attorney!

In August 2002 Vinh Nguyen purchased property in Pflugerville Texas which was financed with a loan from Finance America. Finance America sold the loan to Wells Fargo. Wells appointed Ocwen Loan Servicing as Wells’ agent to collect loan payments, assure that the tax payments were timely made and that the property was insured.

 

In July 2003, the property was purchased by Francis Montenegro. Diem Thi Nguyen signed a Warranty Deed to Francis Montenegro as “Vinh Nguyen, by his attorney in fact, Diem Thi Nguyen.” Diem’s claim to be Vinh’s attorney-in-fact was supported by a Power of Attorney document signed by Vinh in June 2003.

 

The Warranty Deed was recorded with the Travis County Clerk about a week after closing. The Power of Attorney document was not recorded.

 

Montenegro made monthly payments to Vinh until April 2006; presumably Vinh was, in turn, supposed to pay Ocwen but Vinh failed to do so. In May 2006 Montenegro sent a letter to Ocwen requesting authority to make loan payments to Ocwen instead of Vinh.

 

Ocwen never expressly allowed Montenegro to make direct payments, but regardless Montenegro sent an $8128 payment to Ocwen to cure Vinh’s default. Thereafter Montenegro made monthly mortgage payments to Ocwen for one year.

 

In August 2007 Ocwen sent Vinh a Notice of Default and Intent to Accelerate. The notice was not sent to Montenegro. When the default was not cured, Ocwen sent a Notice of Acceleration and Notice of Foreclosure to both Vinh and Montenegro in October 2007.

 

Montenegro filed a lawsuit to stop the foreclosure sale. A temporary restraining order was granted, but Ocwen foreclosed anyway. So Montenegro sued Ocwen for wrongful foreclosure.

 

In February 2012 the trial court ruled for Ocwen. Montenegro appealed.

 

Montenegro claimed that Ocwen should have furnished Notice of Default and Intent to Accelerate to accelerate the loan to Montenegro, not solely to Vinhn. That analysis involves privity, or a legal connection between Ocwen and Montenegro.

 

In order to determine if Montenegro had privity with Ocwen, the Appellate Court had to review the 2003 transaction to determine its validity. If the Power of Attorney was ineffective, then so was the Deed. If that is true, then Montenegro would have no standing to contest Ocwen’s foreclosure.

 

The Appellate Court first turned its gun turrets towards that lonely piece of paper, the Warranty Deed transferring the Pflugerville property to Montenegro in July 2003, recorded in Travis County the week after. The Deed was signed by Diem Thi Nguyen, purportedly as attorney-in-fact for Vinh Nguyen. Vinh, you will recall, was the true property owner, having purchased the property in 2002.

 

The Deed appeared to be Ok, subject to the Power of Attorney provisions. So, next up was an evaluation of the POA document.

 

Texas law provides that Power of Attorney documents must be recorded if they will be used in real property transactions. There was no evidence to show that the Power of Attorney was recorded, at least not in the County that counts – Travis County.

 

Consequently, the Power of Attorney document failed.

 

Failure of the Power of Attorney meant that Diem did not have authority to convey Vinh’s title to Montenegro. In turn, that means that although Vinh could have properly contested Ocwen’s foreclosure despite the existence of a temporary restraining order, Montenegro did not have such standing as Montenegro was, at least in law, a stranger to the transaction.

 

Hopefully Montenegro received a title policy at the 2003 purchase (or after) so he would have recourse against a title underwriter if his ownership is later challenged. Otherwise, I suppose he might have recourse against Diem and Vinh, but it is unknown if either are solvent and doubtless both will raise statute of limitations and other defenses.

 

The trial court’s Judgment was affirmed for Ocwen Loan Servicing. Ocwen wins; Montenegro loses. See Montenegro v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC; No. 07-12-00297-CV, Texas Court of Appeals – Amarillo, November 18, 2013.

 

Lessons learned:

 

1.      Power of Attorney documents are inherently risky business. Sometimes there is no alternative, as the Seller, Buyer, Lender, Landlord or Tenant is unavailable. In other situations such parties will execute a POA simply out of convenience. Avoid the issues presented in a POA by demanding signature of important documents by the real parties, not by their agents and attorneys-in-fact through a POA document.

 

2.      Of course title insurance is available in purchase and financed transactions, but did you know that title insurance is also available for leasing, easements and virtually every other estate in land? As a failsafe, always get title insurance. Title policies can insure the Buyer, Lender, Tenant, easement holder and a host of other holders of Texas estates in land.

 

3.      Always. Get. Title. Insurance. Or did I already write that?

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