BARBER V. JACOBS
753 A.2d 430 (2000)
NATURE OF THE CASE: Jacobs (D) appealed from a judgment, which found that Barber's (P)
agreement to purchase D's residence never came into existence because a necessary condition
had not been fulfilled.
FACTS: P was moving from Canada and made an offer to D to purchase property and signed a
contract with a purchase price of $3,275,000 and a closing date of August 8, 1994. The
contract contained a mortgage contingency clause, which provided that the 'agreement [was]
contingent upon P obtaining a commitment for a loan, to be secured by a first mortgage on
the premises, in an amount not in excess of $1,300,000 . . . .' The mortgage contingency
required P to 'make prompt application for such a loan' and 'to pursue said application with
diligence.' P paid a 10 percent deposit amounting to $327,000, which was held by D's
attorney, pursuant to the contract. A mortgage application was forwarded to The Putnam Trust
Company of Greenwich (bank) on June 20, 1994, disclosing the plaintiff's monthly income of $
210,000 and net worth in excess of $ 4,000,000. On June 30, the bank loan committee approved
the loan but did not establish an interest rate, nor did it issue a formal mortgage
commitment. Because of wetland problems, the bank reversed the loan approval and issued a
written denial because the property failed to comply with agency standards for wetlands. P
requested the return of the deposit because the contract was void under the mortgage
contingency clause. D refused. P looked at and closed on another home. P sued D and got a
verdict in his favor. The trial court found that P made sufficient efforts on the mortgage.
D appealed.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner
No comments:
Post a Comment