ma P&S

Make Mortgage Contingency Dates Workable & Don’t Wait Until Last Minute For Extensions

by Rich Vetstein on April 17, 2010

in Massachusetts Real Estate Law, Offer To Purchase, Purchase and Sale Agreements, Realtors

This week, a very interesting decision involving the negotiation of a residential purchase and sale agreement came down from the Massachusetts Appeals Court in Coviello v. Richardson. Click here to view the decision. The case highlights the need for realtors and real estate attorneys to be proactive with respect to mortgage contingencies and requests for extensions.

The Facts

In the case, on February 12, 2008, buyer (Coviello) and seller (Richardson) signed the standard form Offer to Purchase, which provided that a Purchase and Sale Agreement would be executed by 5:00pm on February 26th. Under the mortgage contingency clause of the offer, which gives the buyer the right to cancel if she cannot obtain financing, the buyer was required to secure a firm mortgage commitment by February 29th. The realtor, who prepared the offer, made the first mistake here: requiring her client, the buyer, to obtain a firm mortgage commitment not even 2 weeks after the parties signed the offer. This was and remains completely unrealistic.

Predictably, the buyer and her broker had immediate concerns that they would be unable to meet the mortgage commitment deadline. The broker asked the buyer’s attorney, Scott Kriss, if he would ask the seller to agree to extend the commitment deadline for an additional week. According to the decision, the request was not immediately conveyed to the seller.

Two hours before the 5:00pm deadline to sign the purchase and sale agreement, Attorney Kriss sent an email to the seller’s attorney, Alan Sharaf, requesting the extension. The seller, who was dealing with a high-risk pregnancy, refused to extend the deadline. No agreement could be reached, and there was no tender or signing of the purchase and sale agreement. (It does appear that the pregnant seller got “cold feet” and backed out of the deal–the request for a one week extension is eminently reasonable and wouldn’t have exposed her to any significant risk).

The buyer sued, claiming that the seller’s refusal to agree to the extension was a breach of the deal. The Land Court initially ruled in favor of the buyer, but the Appeals Court overruled the decision in favor of the seller, holding that a jury would have to decide whether the seller repudiated the contract or would have proceeded with the original terms. The case will be heading to trial.

Take Away

In our opinion, the lesson for realtors and attorneys from this case is (1) make the mortgage contingency dates workable in the offer, and (b) if you are asking for an extension at the 11th hour, protect your buyer in case the seller refuses to agree.

First, the realtor should have used a more realistic mortgage contingency deadline. In the current underwriting environment, realtors should allow at least 30-45 from the signing of the offer for a mortgage commitment.

Second, in our opinion, the buyer’s attorney’s apparent delay in asking for the extension until the 11th hour certainly didn’t help the situation. He could have protected the buyer a lot more had he coupled the request for the extension of the mortgage commitment deadline with either (a) notice that if the seller would not agree, the buyer would opt out of the deal entirely, or (b) a tender of the purchase and sale agreement with the original deadlines (assuming the buyer would take on the risk of being unable to make the deadlines). This would have “boxed in” the seller to either agree to the extension or go through the deal, essentially calling her bluff. At least it would have enabled the buyer to have been in a much better position for litigation because now the fight is over whether the seller would have gone through the original deal. Granted, it appears that the pregnant seller had already made up her mind that she wasn’t going through the deal, no matter the reason.

To the credit of the realtor and attorneys involved, it’s much easier for me to play Monday morning quarterback.

{ 9 comments }

There’s Nothing “Standard” About The Massachusetts Standard Form Real Estate Purchase And Sale Agreement

by Rich Vetstein on August 21, 2009

in Condominium Law, Massachusetts Real Estate Law, Purchase and Sale Agreements, Realtors, Tax Credit, Title Defects, Title Insurance

Signing or not signing?The Massachusetts Purchase and Sale Agreement Is Anything But “Standard”

Home buyers sign a never ending pile of legal documents to purchase a home. But arguably the most important document in the entire transaction is the Massachusetts purchase and sale agreement. The purchase and sale agreement is signed after the Offer to Purchase is executed, and spells out the parties’ responsibilities during the interim period when the property is taken off the market and the closing.

Important Update: Please read our article on the new TRID Rules

In Massachusetts, the form most often used is the so-called standard form agreement supplied by the Greater Boston Real Estate Board or one modeled very closely to this form. (Due to copyright laws, we cannot embed the standard form agreement — contact my office if you need assistance with drafting a purchase and sale agreement). The “standard” form purchase and sale agreement is, however, far from standard, especially for buyers. In fact, the standard form is very much slanted in favor of the seller, and the playing field must be “leveled” to protect the buyer’s interests.

Click here to read our series of posts on the Massachusetts Purchase and Sale Agreement

This is why it’s imperative that home buyers and sellers alike retain a Massachusetts real estate attorney to modify the “standard” form purchase and sale agreement in order to best protect all parties’ rights and remedies, and customize the agreement to the particular aspects of the transaction. This is typically done through a “rider” to the purchase and sales agreement. Often, the buyers’ attorney and the sellers’ attorney will attached two different riders to the agreement.

I’ll outline a few common issues not addressed adequately in the “standard” purchase and sale agreement. (Most of these are from the buyer’s perspective).

Mortgage Contingency

The “standard” purchase and sale agreement does provide a basic mortgage contingency which gives the buyer the option of terminating the agreement if mortgage financing falls through. However, for a buyer, the more specific you are in terms of interest rate, points, name of lending institution and definition of “diligent efforts,” the better. Buyers’ counsel should specify that the buyer will not be required to apply to more than one institutional lender currently making mortgage loans of the type sought by the buyer and that the buyer may terminate the purchase and sale agreement unless the buyer obtains a firm, written commitment for a mortgage loan. Here is a sample rider provision:

MODIFICATION TO PARAGRAPH 26: Application to one such bank or mortgage lender by such date shall constitute “diligent efforts.”  If the written  loan commitment contains terms and conditions that are beyond BUYER’S reasonable ability to control or achieve, or if the commitment requires BUYER to encumber property other than the subject property, BUYER may terminate this agreement, whereupon any payments made under this agreement shall be forthwith refunded and all other obligations of the parties hereto shall cease and this agreement shall be void without recourse to the parties hereto.

Home Inspection/Repairs

Typically, buyers complete the home inspection process prior to the signing of the purchase and sale agreement, and any inspection contingency provision is deleted from the purchase and sale agreement. What happens if the inspection results are not ready before the P&S signing deadline or if the seller has agreed to perform repairs prior to the closing or give a credit at closing? In this case, a home inspection contingency clause should be added back to the agreement, and any seller repairs or closing credits should be meticulously detailed in the rider.

Septic Systems/Title VMassachusetts Septic Title V requirements for selling property

If the home is serviced by an on-site sewage disposal system otherwise known as a septic system, the Massachusetts Septic System Regulations known as Title V requires the inspection of the system within 2 years of the sale of the home. Failed septic systems can cost many thousands of dollars to repair or replace.  Thus, buyers would look to be released from the agreement if the septic system fails inspection.  Alternatively, buyers could be given the option to close if the seller can repair the septic system during an agreed upon time period, provided that the buyers do not lose their mortgage rate lock.

Radon Gas

Radon is a naturally occurring radioactive gas. The ground produces the gas through the normal decay of uranium and radium. As it decays, radon produces new radioactive elements called radon daughters or decay products which scientists have proven to cause lung cancer. Radon testing should be performed by buyers during the home inspection process. Elevated levels of radon (above 4.0 picoCuries per liter (pCi/l) can be treated through radon remediation systems. The purchase and sale agreement should provide for a radon testing contingency and the buyers’ ability to terminate the agreement if elevated radon levels are found, or the option of having the sellers pay for a radon remediation system.

Lead Paintmassachusetts lead paint law

Under the Massachusetts Lead Paint Law, buyers of property are entitled to have the property inspected for the presence of lead paint.  (Sellers are not required to remove lead paint in a sale situation). Because the abatement of lead paint can be costly, buyers typically look for a right to terminate the purchase and sale agreement if lead paint exists and the abatement/removal of it exceeds a certain dollar threshold. Here is an example of a provision added to the standard form:

LEAD PAINT.  Seller acknowledges that the Buyers have a child under six (6) years of age who will live in the premises.  In accordance with Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 111, section 197A, as the premises was constructed prior to 1978, Buyer may have the premises inspected for the presence of lead paint which inspection shall be completed within ten (10) days after the execution of this Agreement, unless extended in writing by the parties.  If the inspection reveals the presence of lead paint, the abatement and/or removal of which will cost $2,000 or more, then Buyer may terminate this agreement, whereupon any payments made under this agreement shall be forthwith refunded and all other obligations of the parties hereto shall cease and this agreement shall be void without recourse to the parties hereto.  Any lead paint removal or abatement shall be Buyers’ responsibility.

Access

When my wife and I signed the Offer to Purchase on our house, she couldn’t wait to get in there with her tape measure, paint chips and fabric swatches. Oftentimes overlooked, but a cause of friction is buyers’ ability to access the house prior to the closing. To avoid such friction, an access clause should be added to the purchase and sale agreement giving the buyer reasonable access at reasonable time with advance notice to the sellers–it’s still their house after all.

These are just a few of the issues not adequately addressed by the “standard” form purchase and sale agreement. There are many more.

_________________________________________
Richard D. Vetstein, Esq. is a nationally recognized real estate attorney, and has handled thousands of Massachusetts real estate transactions. He can be reached via email at [email protected].

{ 31 comments }