|
We own a 3 unit rental building. We are trying to sell it and have an
offer
that asked for a 30 day escrow with vacancy, however in Calif. we must
legally give a 60 day notice to the tenants. ( Unfortunately, we did
not notice the vacancy clause in the Contract.)
Now we have a Contract of Sale that cannot be legally met. During the
closing days of the escrow the buyers asked us to give notice to one
tenant but not all and now want to push us for a 60 day escrow. We
would like to complete this sale but delaying the sale will cause us a
loss of income. Can the buyers legally do this ? What are our options?
|
| |
| |
In article <a1in21pbmiq95kcabqgrbarkcok3qn8e30@4ax.com>,
"motor man" <rdoctors@cox.net> wrote:
Now we have a Contract of Sale that cannot be legally met. During the
closing days of the escrow the buyers asked us to give notice to one
tenant but not all and now want to push us for a 60 day escrow. We
would like to complete this sale but delaying the sale will cause us a
loss of income. Can the buyers legally do this ? What are our options?
Giving notice was your choice. There isn't much you can do
about that.
As far as closing goes, if your contract was written with
closing in 30 days, then your buyer needs to perform. If
they are not able to perform, you can either cancel the
sale, or sue them for "specific performance". That would
either force them to perform (ie, close the deal), or
award you damages.
-john-
--
======================================================================
John A. Weeks III 952-432-2708 john@johnweeks.com
Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com
======================================================================
|
| |
| |
"motor man" wrote in misc.legal.moderated:
We own a 3 unit rental building. We are trying to sell it and have an offer
that asked for a 30 day escrow with vacancy, however in Calif. we must
legally give a 60 day notice to the tenants. ( Unfortunately, we did
not notice the vacancy clause in the Contract.)
Now we have a Contract of Sale that cannot be legally met.
And therefore it's quite possibly void. A contract to do something
impossible is void, and (as you observe) it is legally impossible
to fulfill the terms of this contract.
Now, a judge might decide to alter the length of the escrow period
if there's nothing else with the contract. That's a crap shoot, and
depends on the quality of your and the buyers' attorneys.
Which brings me to my main point: If you're selling rental
propertyy, WHY ON EARTH don't you have an attorney? Trying to get
free legal advice when significant money is involved is penny wise
and pound foolish. Talk to a lawyer, right away.
--
If you e-mail me from a fake address, your fingers will drop off.
I am not a lawyer; this is not legal advice. When you read anything
legal on the net, always verify it on your own, in light of your
particular circumstances. You may also need to consult a lawyer.
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
|
| |
| |
In article <9tev21p0u5smaalkil8252bqjb1aqfns3i@4ax.com>,
Stan Brown <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> wrote:
"motor man" wrote in misc.legal.moderated:
And therefore it's quite possibly void. A contract to do something
impossible is void, and (as you observe) it is legally impossible
to fulfill the terms of this contract.
But it's not impossible. Try offering the current tenants $1 million
each to vacate next week. It's only more expensive than you'd like.
Seth
|
| |
| |
In article <a1in21pbmiq95kcabqgrbarkcok3qn8e30@4ax.com>,
motor man <rdoctors@cox.net> wrote:
We own a 3 unit rental building. We are trying to sell it and have an
offer
that asked for a 30 day escrow with vacancy, however in Calif. we must
legally give a 60 day notice to the tenants. ( Unfortunately, we did
not notice the vacancy clause in the Contract.)
Now we have a Contract of Sale that cannot be legally met. During the
closing days of the escrow the buyers asked us to give notice to one
tenant but not all and now want to push us for a 60 day escrow. We
would like to complete this sale but delaying the sale will cause us a
loss of income. Can the buyers legally do this ? What are our options?
You contracted to sell something under terms you have difficulty delivering on.
Note: the law says the present tenants have 60 days to leave, after you give
them notice. Nothing prevents you from offering 'inducements' -- i.e.
monetary payments -- for them to leave sooner. Those tenants *are* "in the
driver's seat" on the matter, however. They can demand *anything* they want
in return for their early exit. "reasonable" does not enter into the
picture.
Buyer has a potential breach of contract claim against you -- if the tenants
are not out in the 30-day time-frame.
Buyer is willing to settle for closing when you _can_ deliver what
you promised -- i.e. 'vacancy'.
You have a couple of choices:
1) void the contract, and "make good" on _your_ breach.
2) "go along with" the buyer's revised schedule.
If you want the buyer to close on the original schedule, without getting
the 'vacancy' they contracted for, you're engaging in wishful thinking.
At an absolute minimum, you would have reimburse them for the value -- to
*them* -- of the delayed vacancy.
Delaying the closing until you _can_ deliver what you sold would seem like
the cheapest way out.
See a real lawyer as regards the "total cost" of any of the alternatives.
|
| |
| |
|
