LawCURRENTS™

Saturday, April 7, 2012

When Do Two Feet Matter? When $16,728,000 Rides on It!

In 2006, a developer entered into a contract to purchase a large industrial warehouse in Greenpoint, Brooklyn, in order to convert the property into residential housing. The Contract of Sale provided for a purchase price of $16,728,000.

The contract was amended and extended eight times in order to provide for several issues to be resolved. Among those issues, there were tenant buy-out agreements concerning the several remaining commercial tenants. During the entire process, the developer was required to make several types of payments to the seller (separate from the large down payment) towards the operating costs of the property. The developer made substantial payments to the seller, including Surrender Agreements, Tenant Buy-Outs, Operating Expenses, and Security Costs. The property finally became completely vacant, and a closing was to be scheduled in 2007.

Title Defects Raised – Especially Chimney Protrusion

As is common in real estate contracts, there was a clause that all title “defects” were to be cured before closing. A title defect is generally defined as an issue relating to ownership or possession of the property, the legal description of the property to be sold or liens affecting the property – or, more to the point, a title defect is one that a reputable title company believes would render title unmarketable. In this case, the survey revealed that a chimney from an adjoining property was protruding two feet into the property to be sold.

The title defect was raised to the seller’s attorney by the developer. In response, the seller’s attorney claimed that the title defect was insignificant and was being raised as a delay tactic and was without merit. To that end, the seller declared a certain date as the “time of the essence” date for the closing. If the developer did not close on that date, then the down payment and all of the operating costs would be deemed forfeited to the seller. Needless to say, that date came and passed, and the seller declared the developer in breach of the contract, entitling the seller to retain the moneys.

Your Court Street Lawyer, Richard A. Klass, was then retained by the developer to ensure that the down payment moneys would not be lost and title would transfer to the buyer under the Contract of Sale.

Quick Action Was Needed

The first step was to file, along with the Summons and Complaint, a Notice of Pendency (also known as a Lis Pendens) against the Block and Lot of the property. This is a statutory creation under New York’s Civil Practice Law and Rules Article 65. This document gives notice to the entire world that there is a dispute which affects the title, use or possession of real property. The filing of this Notice preserves the rights of the buyer from a seller transferring title to the property in contract, as whoever buys the property is deemed to have knowledge of the dispute.

Simultaneously, the Complaint against the seller was filed with the County Clerk’s Office, which contained several allegations against the seller, including that:

(a) the developer fully complied with the Contract of Sale and was entitled to “specific performance” because real estate is considered a “unique” asset that cannot be replicated (the law recognizes that each piece of real estate is distinct);

(b) the electronic communication from the seller’s attorney to the buyer’s attorney concerning the “time of the essence” closing date did not comply with the “notice” provision of the Contract of Sale (it is always important to check the notice provision of any contract to see how notices to the other side are to be sent, e.g. certified mail, overnight delivery, etc.);

(c) the seller failed to actually “tender” the Deed to the property by coming to the place of closing, as required by the contract (the non-breaching party to a real estate contract must show that it showed up at the place and time indicated in the contract to deliver the Deed, even if the other side does not come; thus, recognizing that the breaching party could potentially show up at the last minute to actually close the transaction); and

(d) the title defects rendered title to the property unmarketable and uninsurable; thus, the developer was entitled to the return of all of its down payment and operating costs.

In New York, it is well settled that in order to place a contract vendor (seller) in default for a claimed failure to provide clear title, the purchaser must first tender performance and demand good title. See, Capozzola v. Oxman, 216 AD2d 509. Following that line, a tender of performance by the purchaser is excused only if the title defect is not curable. See, Cohen v. Kranz, 12 NY2d 242. The law also recognizes that a purchaser may opt to waive a title defect concerning the property in order to close title.

The end result of this case was that, despite the claim of the seller that the developer breached the contract and it was entitled to retain all of the moneys paid, the seller agreed to extend the date of closing for an additional month to facilitate the closing of title to the developer.

— by Richard A. Klass, Esq.

-----------
copyr. 2011 Richard A. Klass, Esq.
The firm's website: www.CourtStreetLaw.com
Richard A. Klass, Esq., maintains a law firm engaged in civil litigation at 16 Court Street, 28th Floor, Brooklyn Heights, New York.
He may be reached at (718) COURT-ST or e-ml to RichKlass@courtstreetlaw.com with any questions.
Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Wednesday, March 7, 2012

Home! Sweet Home!

The homeowner had a bunch of problems. Not only was he saddled with over $30,000 in credit card debt spread across several credit card accounts, he had also just received the Summons and Complaint, filed by his mortgage lender, seeking to foreclose on the mortgage recorded against his home. He was delinquent on his mortgage and owed many months’ worth of mortgage arrears. This homeowner is one of the tens of thousands of homeowners across the State (and more across the country) who have fallen into foreclosure with little help or support. Fortunately for the homeowner, he came to Richard A. Klass, Your Court Street Lawyer, for help.

Establishing the Best Strategy

In order to establish the best strategy for the particular situation, the house’s fair market value first had to be considered.

Many homeowners have seen their property values drop so low that their houses are “underwater,” meaning they owe more on their mortgage than the house is worth. In such circumstances, there are different strategies which may be taken by homeowners, including offering the lender a deed in lieu of foreclosure or staying in possession of the house for as long as possible until the foreclosure auction sale. In this case, the homeowner was unsure of his house’s fair market value, so he was advised to hire a licensed appraiser for an honest, unbiased opinion as to the value of the house. The appraisal came back and showed that the amount due to the mortgage lender on the outstanding mortgage was nearly equal to the fair market value. The homeowner and his wife liked their home and neighborhood, so he wanted to figure out a way to save the house, if possible.

Defending the Mortgage Foreclosure Case

The foreclosure proceeding brought by the mortgage lender had to be answered. The homeowner answered the Complaint and also brought Counterclaims against the lender, alleging that the lender engaged in predatory lending practices, fraud, and violations of the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) and the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act (HOEPA). Filing the Answer and Counterclaims placed an obstacle in the path of the mortgage lender and helped slow down the foreclosure process.

As another part of slowing down the mortgage lender’s case, discovery demands were served, including a request for copies of all documents signed at the closing, when the mortgage was first obtained. It is crucial to a homeowner’s defense of a mortgage foreclosure case, in a time when affidavits are “robo-signed” by non-bank representatives, original documentation is lost by mortgage departments, and mortgages lack assignment from the original lender, that all documents be reviewed for their authenticity and truthfulness.

A Dollar Can Be Stretched Only So Far!

After establishing that the house was not very much “underwater” and that the homeowner wanted to keep the house, the next step was to consider how to pay the mortgage, property taxes and other carrying charges of the house. The homeowner’s take-home salary could only go so far — he could not afford to make the regular monthly mortgage payment as well as the minimum payments on all the various credit card accounts. However, if he could shed the credit card debt, he could more easily afford all of his other expenses.

“Straight” Bankruptcy

Generally, homeowners have to file a “Chapter 13” bankruptcy case to save their home. In a Chapter 13 case, a monthly payment plan over a three- to five-year term is proposed by the debtor, reviewed by the trustee, and then approved or denied by the Bankruptcy Judge. However, in the present situation, a Chapter 13 bankruptcy case was not necessary because there was no equity in the house to protect (net equity being the fair market value of the house less the balance due on the mortgage). Accordingly, the decision was made to file a “Chapter 7” bankruptcy case. A Chapter 7 bankruptcy case — also known as a “straight bankruptcy” — is a legal proceeding in which all of the debtor’s ‘unsecured debts’ (such as credit cards, personal loans and lines of credit) are discharged or extinguished. Once the bankruptcy case was filed, the homeowner benefited from the automatic stay provisions of the Bankruptcy Code. Basically, these provisions act as a “Stop Sign” against creditors, prohibiting them from taking any collection actions against debtors. When this homeowner/debtor received his Discharge, by which he discharged or extinguished all of the unsecured credit card debt, he was left with only the mortgage debt (also known as ‘secured debt’ because the house is collateral for the loan).

Mortgage Foreclosure Proceeding — Round Two!

In New York State, when a homeowner/defendant puts in an appearance in a mortgage foreclosure case, the court puts the case onto its Foreclosure Settlement Conference calendar and schedules a conference between the mortgage lender and the homeowner. The purpose of the conference is to see whether there is any way to mediate and settle the dispute, including exploring the loan modification process.

In our present situation, with the bankruptcy case over and the homeowner coming straight out of his Chapter 7 case with his Discharge of all other debts (his “fresh start!”), the mortgage foreclosure proceeding was placed back onto the Supreme Court’s Foreclosure Settlement Conference calendar. Pursuant to the conference, the homeowner applied for loan modification with the mortgage lender and provided all documentation required, including the application, and his tax returns and paystubs.

With no outstanding credit card debt, the homeowner’s salary clearly demonstrated that he had more than sufficient income to support the mortgage and carrying charges of the house. The good news came at the next foreclosure settlement conference: the homeowner’s application to modify his mortgage loan was approved by the lender and the foreclosure proceeding was dismissed. Home! Sweet Home!

-----------
copyr. 2012 Richard A. Klass, Esq.
The firm's website: www.CourtStreetLaw.com
Richard A. Klass, Esq., maintains a law firm engaged in civil litigation at 16 Court Street, 28th Floor, Brooklyn Heights, New York.
He may be reached at (718) COURT-ST or e-ml to RichKlass@courtstreetlaw.com with any questions.
Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Credits:
Legal services marketing by The Innovation Works, Inc. www.TheInnovationWorks.com
Image at top: Flowering Plum Tree, Eragny, 1894, by Camille Pissarro (1830-1903). This image is in the public domain because its copyright has expired. This applies to Australia, the European Union and those countries with a copyright term of life of the author plus 70 years. This image is in the public domain in the United States. This applies to U.S. works where the copyright has expired, often because its first publication occurred prior to January 1, 1923.

Tuesday, February 7, 2012

Force ‘Em to Sell! The Right to Specific Performance

In the typical real estate transaction, the seller is interested in selling the property, the buyer is interested in buying it, and the Contract of Sale is merely used to memorialize the deal and as the basis for the buyer to obtain a mortgage commitment from a mortgage lender. The closing takes place; everyone leaves happy!

Sometimes, however, the seller fails or refuses to comply with the Contract of Sale and sell the property to the buyer. In that circumstance, the legal ramifications of the Contract of Sale come into play. This was the situation in a recent case litigated by Richard A. Klass, “Your Court Street Lawyer,” and decided in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Nassau last month.

In Korzeniewski v. Estate of Poswolsky, the plaintiff wanted to buy a house in Long Beach, New York. Through a local real estate broker, he found a nice house owned by an 86-year old man looking to sell his house so he could downsize to an apartment. The Contract of Sale was signed, with a sale price of $465,000, in October 2003. Each side had been represented by counsel.

In November 2003, the owner/seller entered into the Nassau University Medical Center complaining of pains, and a pacemaker was installed. The medical records of the hospital had notations that the seller was sometimes disoriented and suffering from dementia. In December 2003, after voluntarily checking himself out of the hospital three weeks earlier, the owner died.

After the owner’s death, his son was appointed the executor of his estate by the Surrogate’s Court. The son/executor informed the buyer that he believed that the real estate broker took advantage of his father, and that the house was really worth more than $200,000 above the original $465,000 sale price. Accordingly, the son disavowed the Contract of Sale, indicating that he would only sell the property to this buyer if he paid the additional moneys.

Real estate is “unique property”:

One of the tenets of contract law is that real estate is considered a “unique” property – one which cannot be substituted with another. That is, just like a snowflake, one piece of property is not the same as any other. Since the house is unique, and no monetary award for breaching of the contract would satisfy the buyer, the buyer brought an action for specific performance against the son/executor. The substance of the action was the request for the judge to direct the executor to “specifically” perform the contract and transfer the Deed to the property for the original sale price.

Lack of evidentiary proof of dementia:

At the conclusion of discovery in the case, including the taking of depositions of the parties and the attorney for the owner/decedent (who happened to be a distant cousin of the owner), a motion was brought for summary judgment in favor of the buyer, awarding him specific performance of the contract. Attached as part of the proof in support of the motion was the petition filed by the executor with the Surrogate’s Court, in which he indicated that the value of the house was $500,000 at the time of death (less than 10% more than the sale price negotiated four months earlier).

In response, the executor put forth two proofs that his father was suffering from dementia and, therefore, lacked the mental capacity to sign the Contract of Sale, namely: (a) the medical records from Nassau University Medical Center (where the notations of dementia appeared in the records); and (b) the affidavit of a neurologist who neither examined the decedent nor consulted with any of his personal physicians, but relied solely upon the medical records which post-dated the signing of the Contract of Sale.

No need for a trial – just make the seller perform the real estate contract:

In granting summary judgment to buyer (which meant that the judge did not believe that there existed any factual issues to be decided by trial), the judge enforced the terms of the Contract of Sale to make the executor “specifically” perform the contract and sell the property for the original sale price. Relying upon case law, the judge found that the buyer proved that he “substantially performed [his] contractual obligations and was willing and able to perform the remaining obligations, that defendant was able to convey the property, and there was no adequate remedy at law.”

In disregarding the executor’s proofs, the judge found that he did not meet his burden of proving that the decedent was incompetent (in order to refute the presumption that people are considered mental competent and capable of making a contract). According to well settled law from the NYS Court of Appeals (Ortelere v. Teachers’ Retirement Board), the focus of the inquiry is whether the person’s mind was so affected as to render him wholly incompetent to comprehend and understand the nature of the transaction at issue. In this case, the executor did not offer any proof that his father was so affected by dementia that he was unable to enter into the Contract of Sale. Further, there was no proof that he was forced or coerced into signing the contract.