This blog provides commentary by the author, a New Jersey attorney. By using this Blog you agree that the information on this blog does not constitute legal or professional advice and no attorney-client or other relationship is created. Each case has its own particular facts and issues, and this blog should not be relied upon as a substitute for independent legal advice. The laws in your state may be different than anything suggested in this blog. The adequacy, completeness, currency or accuracy of the content is neither warranted nor guaranteed. Your use of the information on this blog or materials linked from it is at your own risk. Nothing in this blog is intended to be a statement of position applicable to any particular case the author may be involved in. Always seek advice of a qualified attorney licensed in your area. There is no substitute for good, experienced, personal legal advice.







Monday, November 7, 2011

Buying and Selling Real Estate- unwelcome surprises and new problems- "parties beware"

A recent Smart Money article, "How appraisals are derailing home sales" points out that lenders have established new and much more stringent requirements for appraisals to support mortgage loans. The result is that many deals are being jeopardized when the appraisal comes in below the sale price and the financing applied for is not available. When  this happens, the buyer may want her deposit back and the seller will be unhappy at that demand.

The problem is that the "standard form" real estate contract commonly used by brokers creates a critical ambiguity that may result in a needless battle. The problem is in the mortgage contingency clause, which provides that a buyer may cancel if mortgage approval is not obtained by a specified date. On its face this sounds fine, but as always the devil is in the details.

For more on how we can help, please visit our website, http://www.nv-njlaw.com/
Consider the situation where a buyer receives mortgage approval, but that approval is subject to conditions that the buyer cannot meet or did not expect. This could include a "satisfactory appraisal" or an appraisal at a specified value.  What then? While New Jersey Courts have interpreted mortgage contingency clauses to mean and require that the buyer have a "firm" commitment, and have allowed Buyers to cancel and get their deposit money back where the commitment had conditions outside their control. Davis v Strazza, 380 N.J. Super 476 (App Div. 2005), who wants to have to go to court because the contract is unclear?

So we always recommend that the contract make clear that the buyer must have a "firm" mortgage commitment that results in availability of mortgage funds at closing, except where the inability to get financing is due to something within the buyer's control, despite good faith efforts.

No one wants a real estate deal to go sour, but even less do we want to end up in court. Given the fluid market we are in, careful review and careful drafting is called for. An experienced attorney should be consulted to make sure there are no unwelcome surprises

1 comment:

  1. This post is well written and informative. I don't comment often, but it doesn't cost me anything to say it when its true.
    Bankruptcy Florida

    ReplyDelete