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.

Stop the Presses!

Your erstwhile reporter has found a biggy. At least I think it is. A BIGGY. Send me an email and tell me that you do or do not agree.

In 2008 Albert and Jennifer Magill entered into a contract to purchase real estate from The Estate of William H. Watson, Sr. The Magills deposited $8,000 in earnest money with the title company.

The Magills were unable to renovate / construct due to a truculent Property Owner’s Association. So the Magills terminated the deal by sending notice to the Estate. The Magills signed a Release Agreement providing for the return of all Earnest Money to them.

Instead of signing the Release, the Seller (well actually their assignee but no matter for this purpose) sent a notice to the Magills demanding the earnest money. When the Magills did not comply, the Seller filed a lawsuit against them alleging breach of contract.

The lawsuit requested not only the earnest money, but also three times that amount based on a damages provision in the Contract as follows:

"D. DAMAGES: Any party who wrongfully fails or refuses to sign a release acceptable to the escrow agent within 7 days of receipt of the request will be liable to the other party for liquidated damages in an amount equal to the sum of: (i) three times the amount of the earnest money; (ii) the earnest money; (iii) reasonable attorney's fees; and (iv) all costs of suit."

The case was tried to a jury, which found the Magills had breached the contract. Judgment was entered for the Seller (again, actually their assignee) for $32,000, representing the $8,000 earnest money amount plus liquidated damages of three times the earnest money, as well as attorneys fees, interests and costs.

The Magills appealed, contending that the liquidated damages clause is an unenforceable penalty.

And why is this interesting to us? Because this clause was written by the Texas Real Estate Commission and is presently contained in their on-line forms site, here: http://www.trec.state.tx.us/pdf/contracts/20-11.pdf.

But wait there’s more. Unless an exception exists, TREC licensees are mandated by law to use that exact form in residential transactions.

They. Have. No. Choice.

And – still more. Some users of commercial real estate contracts and leases in Texas (and outside of Texas too), taking their cue from TREC, have incorporated similar provisions.

The Texas Appellate Court reviewed the clause, and determined that it must be enforced if (1) the harm caused by the breach is incapable or difficult of estimation; and (2) the amount of liquidated damages is a reasonable forecast of just compensation. That follows the ruling given us by the Texas Supreme Court in 1991.

The Appellate Court found authority that if the amount stipulated in the liquidated damages clause is shown to be disproportionate to the actual damages, the clause is a penalty and will not be enforced.

The Court concluded that, because the contract simply takes the value of the earnest money and multiplies it times three, the provision is an unlawful penalty and does not attempt to forecast actual damages.

In fact, the Court used the TREC’s own commentary to defeat the TREC’s own contract: “This conclusion is supported by the comment promulgated by [TREC] . . . that the purpose of the clause was ‘to provide for additional incentives for prompt release of the earnest money.’ ”

WOW. Probably without intending to do so, Al and Jen Magill just gutted TREC’s most important contract, and similar provisions contained in commercial contracts and leases too. My surmise is that TREC is busy re-writing the statutorily-mandated sales contracts to comply with this ruling.

The trial court’s Judgment was reversed for the Magills; damages were reduced from $32,000 to $8,000. See Magill v. Watson; No. 01-12-00051-CV, Texas Court of Appeals – First District, July 9, 2013. I am not aware of any further appeals.

Lessons learned:

1.      Just because TREC wrote it – or it’s contained in a form – doesn’t make it enforceable!

2.      Liquidated damages clauses are inherently suspect and susceptible to challenge.

3.      This might be an opportune moment for you to closely examine your contracts and leases!

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