The Pipes, The Pipes Are . . . Frozen! (Or, Who Is Liable For Property Damage While Home Buyer And Home Seller Wait For The Final Check To Clear?)

by: Peter J. Gallagher (@pjsgallagher) (LinkedIn)

Frozen pipe (pd)Although the temperature today is supposed to reach 90 degrees, this post is about frozen pipes. More specifically, pipes in a house that is under contract for sale that freeze and cause property damage after the scheduled, but not completed, closing, but before the buyer takes possession of the home. In a case like that, who is liable for the damage?

In Bianchi v. Ladjen, plaintiff was under contract to buy a home. It was an all cash sale, no mortgage was involved. The closing was scheduled for New Year's Eve. Plaintiff performed a walk through on the morning of the closing and reported no damage to, or issues with, the home. The closing could not be completed as scheduled, however, because plaintiff did not wire the balance of the purchase price to the title company prior to the closing as he had been instructed to do. Instead, plaintiff brought a certified check to the closing. As a result, the parties entered into an escrow agreement, which provided that the title company would hold  "all closing proceeds" and the "Deed & Keys" in escrow until the check cleared.

This is where it gets tricky.  

Continue reading “The Pipes, The Pipes Are . . . Frozen! (Or, Who Is Liable For Property Damage While Home Buyer And Home Seller Wait For The Final Check To Clear?)”

Good News: That Tenant You May Not Have Known You Had Is Not A Cloud On Title

by:  Peter J. Gallagher (@pjsgallagher) (LinkedIn)

AuctionIf you have ever been to a sheriff's sale in New Jersey then you are familiar with the litany of announcements that precede each sale — "This sale is made subject to easements of record," "The property is being sold on an 'as is' basis," etc. Sellers make these announcements because, under New Jersey law, they are required to disclose "any substantial defect in or cloud upon the title of the real estate sold, which would render such title unmarketable." If a seller intentionally or negligently fails to disclose any substantial defects or clouds on title, then a court may vacate the winning bid and return the winning bidder's deposit. For example, if a seller fails to reveal the amount of unpaid taxes on a property before a sheriff's sale, the sale can be vacated if the winning bidder discovers the amount and is unwilling to pay it.

Usually included in these announcements is something making clear that the property is being sold subject to the rights of tenants and occupants, if any. But what happens when, after the sale, the winning bidder visits the property and discovers a tenant, or at least someone claiming to be a tenant, occupying the property? Does that entitle the winning bidder to vacate the sale and get its deposit back?

This is exactly what happened in PHH Mortgage Corporation v. Alleyne. In that case, the winning bidder at a sheriff's sale moved to set aside its successful bid and compel a refund of the amount it tendered to the sheriff at the sale (winning bidders are generally required to put 20% of the bid price down at the sale and pay the balance within 30 days). The winning bidder argued that, after the sheriff's sale, it sent a representative to the property and he discovered an individual who "refused to give his name but asserted rights to possession of the property as a tenant." The winning bidder argued that (1) this tenancy was a cloud on title, therefore it should have been disclosed at the sale, and (2) the seller has an independent duty to inspect for tenants on the property before the sale. The trial court rejected these arguments and the Appellate Division affirmed.

Continue reading “Good News: That Tenant You May Not Have Known You Had Is Not A Cloud On Title”

In Case You Ever Find Yourself Fighting With Your Wife Over Your Ferraris . . .

by:  Peter J. Gallagher (@pjsgallagher) (LinkedIn)

Ferrari (pd)Right. I never do either. But if you do (or think you might in the future) then you might want to know about Durrani v. Wide World of Cars. In that case, plaintiff sued a car dealership and her ex-husband's former lawyers for delivering two Ferraris to her ex-husband, allegedly in violation of an order entered in their divorce action.

As the trial court described it, when plaintiff and her ex-husband were married, they lived an "extravagant lifestyle." Among other things,  they owned "twenty-five luxury cars worth approximately one million dollars, boats and properties." Of these assets, however, plaintiff was only on the title of two cars (and not the Ferraris). Nonetheless, during their divorce proceeding, plaintiff sought "exclusive possession" of the Ferraris, which were titled and registered to her ex-husband and stored at the defendant dealership's facilities. Consistent with this claim, plaintiff's counsel sent a letter to the dealership requesting that it not release or transfer the Ferraris to anyone, including plaintiff's ex-husband, and threatening to hold the dealership liable for damages if it did. At the end of the letter, counsel asked the dealership to agree to abide by the demand and indicated that if it did not agree, plaintiff would "immediately seek to serve [the dealership] with a court order." The dealership did not respond.

Around the same time plaintiff's counsel sent this letter, the family part entered an order in the divorce proceeding preventing either party from dissipating, selling, etc. any assets of the marriage, and specifically identified the Ferraris in a list of assets to which this restraint applied. Plaintiff's counsel sent a copy of the order to the dealership, purportedly placing it on notice of the terms.

 

Continue reading “In Case You Ever Find Yourself Fighting With Your Wife Over Your Ferraris . . .”

“Send me dead flowers to my wedding, and I won’t forget to put roses on your grave”

by:  Peter J. Gallagher (@pjsgallagher)

I don't handle any family law cases, mostly because I do not think I could deal with the emotional issues that are often involved in them. But every now and again a family law decision piques my interest. The recent unpublished Appellate Division decision in Taffaro v. Taffaro was one of those cases. In that case, plaintiff was estranged from his half-sister after a dispute over their mother's estate. After the dispute, he began "attaching paper items" to her gravestone, "frequently directed at [his half sister] and referencing the dispute." When some of these items were removed, plaintiff assumed his half-sister did it, so he pursued criminal charges against her and, when these proved unsuccessful, sued her for conversion, invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent infliction of emotional distress.

The court dismissed the invasion of privacy and intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress counts on statute of limitations grounds. Even assuming that defendant took the items from the gravestone, which there was no evidence to support, they were taken more than two years before plaintiff sued and plaintiff's claims were thus untimely. The trial court then held a bench trial on the conversion claim and eventually dismissed it as well, holding that plaintiff had abandoned the items. Plaintiff appealed.

The Appellate Division affirmed. It held that conversion is the "unauthorized assumption and exercise of the right of ownership over goods or personal chattels belonging to another . . . ." But, abandonment, which is the relinquishment of "all right, title, claim and possession" of property "with the intention of not reclaiming it," is a complete defense to conversion. In Taffaro, the Appellate Division held that the "necessary overt act" demonstrating abandonment occurred when plaintiff placed the items at his mother's grave. The Appellate Division held that the "ephemeral nature of the cards and decorative items, which were made of paper and left outside" demonstrated plaintiff's "intent to abandon." And, the Appellate Division noted that the purpose of the items was to harass defendant, not honor the memory of plaintiff's mother. Therefore, for all of these reasons, the court held that plaintiff had abandoned the items and could not maintain a cause of action for conversion.

[Fun little fact about the title of this post, which obviously is a portion of the lyrics from one of my favorite Rolling Stones songs, "Dead Flowers." My friend and I went to see Steve Earle at Tradewinds in 1998 when he was touring in support of his El Corazon album. Great show. But then, for the encore, he came walking out with Bruce Springsteen. Now, in the interest of full disclosure, my friend and I went to the show mostly because we were big Steve Earle fans, but partly because of the chance that Bruce might show up. Lucky for us, he did, and they played a couple of Stones songs, including Dead Flowers. They also played Everybody's Trying To Be My Baby" for Carl Perkins who had died a few days before the show. Anyway, click here for the full audio from the encore.]

Appellate Division Holds That Buyer Can Sue Seller’s Broker For Failing To Relay Offer To Seller

by: Peter J. Gallagher (@pjsgallagher)

In a decision issued earlier this week, the Appellate Division reinstated a lawsuit against a real estate broker who failed to relay an offer from the buyer to its client, the seller. If you are thinking, as I was, "of course the court would do this, why wouldn't you be able to sue" then read on because the facts of the case make the trial court's decision to dismiss the complaint even more unbelievable. (Of course, at this point in the case, all we have are plaintiff’s allegations, which the court had to assume were true for purposes of evaluating the trial court’s decision on the motion to dismiss.)

In D'Agastino v. Gesher LLC, plaintiff wanted to buy a home in Jackson, New Jersey. The home, which had been foreclosed, was owned by the lender and was being offered for sale at $184,900. Plaintiff instructed his broker to contact the seller's broker and make an offer of $150,000. After receiving no response, plaintiff's broker faxed a written offer to the seller's broker, sent a confirming email to the broker, and eventually tried to contact the seller directly to confirm that the offer was received. None of these efforts were successful.

Seller's broker eventually responded and told plaintiff that the seller had lowered its price to $129,000 and suggested that plaintiff lower its bid. Plaintiff's broker said this "sounded fishy" and advised plaintiff not to lower the bid. Plaintiff took his broker's advice.

 

Continue reading “Appellate Division Holds That Buyer Can Sue Seller’s Broker For Failing To Relay Offer To Seller”