How JustAnswer Works:

  • Ask an Expert
    Experts are full of valuable knowledge and are ready to help with any question. Credentials confirmed by a Fortune 500 verification firm.
  • Get a Professional Answer
    Via email, text message, or notification as you wait on our site.
    Ask follow up questions if you need to.
  • 100% Satisfaction Guarantee
    Rate the answer you receive.

Ask Jane Doe Deer Your Own Question

Jane Doe Deer
Jane Doe Deer, Attorney
Category: Business Law
Satisfied Customers: 3864
Experience:  Atty since 1986. Real estate, tax, and other business law questions
Type Your Business Law Question Here...
Jane Doe Deer is online now
A new question is answered every 9 seconds

I am buying a property that has had tons of legal ...

Resolved Question:

I am buying a property that has had tons of legal problems, none related to me, I have made an offer and it was accepted. The time to close has past due to banks, appraisals surveys, again nothing to do with me. To extend thay are asking for more earnest money but added the clause non refundable if not closed by 6/30. The money is not the problem it is the if not closed by 6/30, all the delays have been out of my hands. I have refused to put up the money and they said they were going to have to pursue me with all their remidies. My question, in Arkansas what other than specific performace, or damages which is a mathmatical proof are their remidies
Submitted: 6 years ago.
Category: Business Law
Expert:  Jane Doe Deer replied 6 years ago.

Thank you for contacting Just Answer.

The story is a little peculiar. If everything is now taken care of (banks, etc) why don't you just close tomorrow?

And if you still want to buy this place, what's the current delay?

In your original offer (the one that should have already closed) what does the fine print of the puchase and sale agreement say about delays that are out of your hands?

Do you still want to buy the property or not?

I'm sorry this isn't an immediate answer to your question. Sometimes I need more background information before I can properly respond.

Thanks!

Jane

I'll be waiting to hear from you.

Jane Doe Deer, Attorney
Category: Business Law
Satisfied Customers: 3864
Experience: Atty since 1986. Real estate, tax, and other business law questions
Jane Doe Deer and 5 other Business Law Specialists are ready to help you
Customer: replied 6 years ago.
Property has been in bankruptcy, my offer was I would buy property when judge oked sale, that happened on March 28.2008. Then the tables turned and everything was rush rush. I had to get investors and a loan, I have both. The letter form the bank is in the sellers lawyers hand. We were to close the second time 6/01/08. They keep setting these short deadlines, we are still waiting on appraisal and survey, like we were three weeks ago. However we are told they will be in our hands maybe tomorrow.
To extend to 6/30 they want more money and it non refundable if not closed 6/30. As I have seen I control no timing I can not do it with other peoples money. They turned hostile today and started talking remidies. If they sell it to someone else at a higher price there is no damage? and specific performance is redundant due to the fact I very much want the property?
Expert:  Jane Doe Deer replied 6 years ago.

If you very much want the property, give them the non-refundable money but make sure - absolutely sure - that it goes toward the purchase price, as another down payment. Tell them you can't meet with them until Monday afternoon, and you'll have it for them then.

They will have no remedies against you if the contract to buy excuses you from failing to close through no fault of your own. That's usually in the small print, but you need to check whether or not that was in the contract.

But you're right - specific performance would be the main remedy available. But they could also try to sell to someone else, and then you won't get the property you really want.

Does that help?

We can talk some more but I do want to let you know that I'll be taking my break in an hour or so and may not be back to read my email until Friday am (PST).

Thanks,

Jane Doe, Deer

Customer: replied 6 years ago.
and if it does not close by 6/30 I loose? There addendum states all prior conditions removed, nonrefundable if not closed by 6/30.
I have by no legal moved stalled them as they drew a line in the sand 5:00 today to have the money. I have been unavailable to them and emailed saying I wanted to meet, I want to continue with the closing, but no offense to your profession I wanted the seller there as I have never met them and I have been made to feel like they are doing me a favor by selling to me through the lawyers office. I just wanted to know what all they could through up to me as what they were going to do to me if did not put up the money. I did sign the addendum but have the original and never sent the money as the investors said they did not agree with the non refundable deal.
Expert:  Jane Doe Deer replied 6 years ago.
I am always very, very suspicious of people who rush me when money is involved. There's often a scam behind it.
Customer: replied 6 years ago.
I hate to beat a dead horse, but you being suspicious does not give me a legal answer. Please bare with me.

What recourse do they have 1-2-3-what recourse do I have 1-2-3-?

Thank You so much
Expert:  Jane Doe Deer replied 6 years ago.

The vendor can go to court for the purchase price, so your thought about specific performance was right. Most of the Arkansas cases are from the 1880's that I could find. Here are the annotations. Let me know if you want to see the full case on any of them:

[Cited 5 times for this legal issue]
Anderson v. Mills, 28 Ark. 175
Key Number graphic400 VENDOR AND PURCHASER
Key Number graphic400VI Remedies of Vendor
Key Number graphic400VI(B) Actions for Purchase Money
Key Number graphic400k303 k. Conditions precedent.
Ark.,1873
Before the vendor can bring an action at law for the payment of the purchase money for lands, he must tender a deed in accordance with the covenants of his title bond and demand payment, but, in equity, the rule should not be applied with the same strictness as at law, and where it appears that the vendor, pending the suit, made tender of the deed in court, and the objection for the first time is made in this court that no deed was tendered before suit brought, such objection will not be cause for reversal of the decree or an order of dismissal.

Link to KeyCite red flag negative treatment [Cited 4 times for this legal issue]
McGehee v. Blackwell, 28 Ark. 27
Ark.,1872
While, in action at law for the purchase money due, where the consideration is the conveyance of the property sold upon payment of the purchase money, and the covenants between the parties are mutual and dependent, a deed should be tendered, and not merely offered to be tendered, before suit brought, yet in equitable proceedings, while the rule should ordinarily be observed, the chancellor may, when deemed promotive of the ends of justice, relax or altogether dispense with the rule.

Link to KeyCite citing references [Cited 3 times for this legal issue]
Smith v. Henry, 7 Ark. 207
Ark.,1846
Upon agreements for the sale and purchase of lands where the stipulations of the parties are dependent, the vendor, to maintain an action against the vendee for the purchase money, must tender a conveyance and demand the purchase money.

Link to KeyCite citing references [Cited 2 times for this legal issue]
Quetermous v. Hatfield, 14 S.W. 1096
Ark.,1890
A vendor of land, who agreed to deliver a bond for title upon payment of a certain note, cannot recover a judgment on such note without first making a tender of the bond for title.

Link to KeyCite citing references [Cited 2 times for this legal issue]
Atkinson v. Hudson, 44 Ark. 192
Ark.,1884
Where the obligations of the vendor to make title and of the vendee to pay the purchase money for land are dependent, the vendor can not sue at law for the purchase price without first tendering to the purchaser a deed in conformity to the contract; but where the suit is in equity, tender before suit is not essential, but is sufficient if made with the bill. The Chancellor will then grant the proper relief to the plaintiff and relieve the defendant from cost which might not have been necessary if the tender had been made before suit.

Link to KeyCite citing references [Cited 2 times for this legal issue]
Anderson v. Mills, 28 Ark. 175
Ark.,1873
While, in an action at law for the purchase money due, where the consideration is the conveyance of the property sold upon payment of the purchase money, and the convenants between the parties are mutual and dependent, a deed should be tendered, and not merely offered to be tendered, before suit brought, yet, in equitable proceedings, while the rule should ordinarily be observed, the chancellor may, when deemed promotive of the ends of justice, relax or altogether dispense with it.

Link to KeyCite citing references [Cited 2 times for this legal issue]
Lewis v. Davis, 21 Ark. 235
Ark.,1860
Where, on a verbal contract for the sale of land, the vendor assigned to the vendees a title bond thereof, and agreed to make or cause to be made to them, within one month, a good title to the land, and the vendees paid a part of the consideration in money, and gave their notes for the remainder, held, that the making of the title was a condition precedent to the plaintiff's right to recover in an action upon the notes.

Link to KeyCite citing references [Cited 2 times for this legal issue]
Smith v. Henry, 7 Ark. 207
Ark.,1846
The principle decided in Byers & Minniken vs. Aiken, 5 Ark.R. 419, and Drennen vs. Boyer & Clark, ib. 497, that "in an action for the purchase money, a plea alleging that the plaintiff refused to execute a conveyance according to the agreement is bad, if it does not aver that a deed was tendered by the purchaser to the vendor and he refused to execute it, or that the vendor took upon himself to prepare the deed and he afterwards refused to execute," overruled.

Link to KeyCite citing references [Cited 2 times for this legal issue]
Mayers v. Rogers, 5 Ark. 417
Ark.,1844
Under a contract clearly expressing the intention that payment of the price of land shall precede the conveyance, an action for the price may be brought without a conveyance or tender thereof.

Link to KeyCite citing references [Cited 1 time for this legal issue]
McConnell v. Little, 11 S.W. 371
Ark.,1889
In an action for the balance of purchase price under a contract by which plaintiffs agreed for a certain sum to procure a conveyance of certain lots from the owner to defendant, there can be no recovery when it appears that plaintiffs gave defendant, before the last installment of the price was due, a deed conveying different lots, though defendant, in ignorance of the fact that the deed did not convey the property purchased, accepted it without objection, as the conveyance of the proper lots was a condition precedent to the right to the purchase money.

Link to KeyCite citing references [Cited 1 time for this legal issue]
Rudd v. Savelli, 44 Ark. 145
Ark.,1884
A vendor of land by title bond cannot have relief for the purchase money, where the payment of it and the making of title are to be concomitant acts, or where the execution of the conveyance is to precede the payment, unless before suit, or, at farthest, at the time of the decree, he shows himself able and willing to execute a warranty deed and tenders one.

Link to KeyCite citing references [Cited 1 time for this legal issue]
Ex parte Hodges, 24 Ark. 197
Ark.,1866
A vendor who comes into a court of equity to enforce the execution of a contract for the sale of lands, should tender a perfect and unincumbered title; at all events, such a title as he contracted to make.

Link to KeyCite citing references [Cited 1 time for this legal issue]
Miller v. Wood, 23 Ark. 546
Ark.,1861
A plea that the only consideration of a note was an agreement, signed and sealed by the plaintiff and her testator, to sell and deliver to the defendant their possession as occupants of certain land and their improvements thereon, and alleging that such possession, etc., had not been delivered contains good matter of defense to a suit upon the note.

Link to KeyCite citing references [Cited 1 time for this legal issue]
Mayers v. Rogers, 5 Ark. 417
Ark.,1844
R. by covenant sold, and agreed to convey to M. a town lot, provided M. should first pay him the full amount of the purchase money, for which M. had executed his bonds-M. cannot urge, as a defense, in an action on the bonds, for the purchase money, that the conveyance has not been made or tendered. The covenants are independent.

Link to KeyCite citing references [Cited 0 times for this legal issue]
Bryan v. Bishop, 302 S.W.2d 524
Ark.,1957
Where purchaser took possession of realty under contract of sale and continued to collect rents thereon, but refused to make monthly payments on purchase price required by contract, vendor was not required to tender deed as a prerequisite to recovery of unpaid balance of purchase price.

Link to KeyCite citing references [Cited 0 times for this legal issue]
Letchworth v. Vaughan, 90 S.W. 1001
Ark.,1905
Where a contract for the sale of lands provided that the vendor should, within a certain period of time, furnish "a perfect or satisfactory title" to the lands, and that half of the purchase money should be retained until the title of the land should be perfected, and that, in the event of the failure of the vendor to perfect the title within time mentioned, sum retained should be forfeited to the vendee, the vendor is entitled to recover the remainder of the purchase money whenever he furnishes a title which the vendee agrees to accept as satisfactory.

Link to KeyCite citing references [Cited 0 times for this legal issue]
McConnell v. Little, 11 S.W. 371
Ark.,1889
The plaintiff sold the defendant certain town lots and received from him all the purchase money except $100, the payment of which was by agreement deferred until after the execution of a deed for the lots which the plaintiff undertook to procure from M., who owned the property and had authorized the sale. Before the residue of the purchase money was due the plaintiff obtained a deed executed by M., and delivered it to the defendant who received it without objection, but on examination made sometime after its delivery, discovered that it did not convey any part of either of the lots he had purchased. When payment of the $100 was demanded the defendant refused to make it until he received a conveyance for the lots he had purchased. Held: That the plaintiffs were not entitled to recover the $100 until they procured according to their agreement, the conveyance of the lots purchased, which was a condition precedent to its payment.

Link to KeyCite citing references [Cited 0 times for this legal issue]
Atkinson v. Hudson, 44 Ark. 192
Ark.,1884
Where the duty of the vendor to make title and that of the vendee to pay the price are mutual and dependent, the vendor need not tender title before he can bring suit to enforce payment of the price, a tender in the bill being sufficient.

Link to KeyCite citing references [Cited 0 times for this legal issue]
Price v. Sanders, 39 Ark. 306
Ark.,1882
A vendor of land by title bond, conditioned to convey upon payment of the purchase-money, is not entitled to a personal judgment against the vendee for the purchase-money, without first tendering him a deed for the land.

Link to KeyCite citing references [Cited 0 times for this legal issue]
Price v. Sanders, 39 Ark. 306
Ark.,1882
To an action on a note given for the purchase money of land, where a title bond has been given conditioned to convey on payment of the price, a failure to tender a deed is a defense.

Link to KeyCite citing references [Cited 0 times for this legal issue]
Sorrells v. McHenry, 38 Ark. 127
Ark.,1881
A vendor cannot maintain an action at law for the purchase money unless he has tendered a deed and demanded the purchase money before suit, provided the stipulations of the vendor and vendee are dependent.

Link to KeyCite citing references [Cited 0 times for this legal issue]
Sorrells v. McHenry, 38 Ark. 127
Ark.,1881
Where in a contract for the sale of land, the agreements of the vendor to make title and the vendee to pay the purchase money are dependent, the vendor cannot sue at law for the purchase money, without first tendering the deed and demanding the purchase money; but the rule is otherwise in equity where costs are under the control of the chancellor.

Link to KeyCite citing references [Cited 0 times for this legal issue]
Wakefield v. Johnson, 26 Ark. 506
Ark.,1871
Where vendor wants the purchase money, the deed should be tendered before filing a bill; and where vendee wants a deed, the purchase money should be tendered before filing a bill.

[Cited 0 times for this legal issue]
Willis v. Johnson, 26 Ark. 510
Ark.,1871
Where vendor wants purchase money, deed should be tendered before filing bill, and where purchaser wants deed, purchase money should be tendered before filing bill.

Link to KeyCite citing references [Cited 0 times for this legal issue]
Busby v. Treadwell, 24 Ark. 456
Ark.,1866
A vendee having given his note for certain lands to be paid on a day certain, provided that if the lands were involved in suit concerning the title to the same, payment was not to be made until the suit should be decided; there being no suit pending, at the time of the coming to maturity of the note, involving the title to the lands so sold, the vendor's right of action was complete.

Link to KeyCite citing references [Cited 0 times for this legal issue]
Thomas v. Lanier, 23 Ark. 639
Ark.,1861
The stipulation, on a sale of land, to make title, and the undertaking to pay the purchase money, stand on the same legal footing; and where the one is a condition precedent to the other, and the time but not the place of performance is fixed, the vendor must seek the vendee, if within the State, but if he be absent, the vendor may proceed by attachment for the purchase money without first offering to make title.

Link to KeyCite citing references [Cited 0 times for this legal issue]
Smith v. Henry, 7 Ark. 207
Ark.,1846
In an action for the purchase money of land on an agreement of sale, the vendor must allege and prove a tender of a deed of conveyance and a demand of the price; and this, although the contract for the price has been assigned, and though the contract rests in parol.

Link to KeyCite citing references [Cited 0 times for this legal issue]
Sayre v. Craig, 4 Ark. 10
Ark.,1842
Where plaintiff covenants with defendant to convey land to him by a deed in fee simple, and in consideration thereof defendant convenants to pay a certain sum of money on a future day specified, and to give bills of exchange for the amount payable at such time as described, and plaintiff is to deliver possession at a day certain before such day of payment, plaintiff may maintain an action against defendant on his covenant without averring performance or his readiness to perform.

Customer: replied 6 years ago.
Reply to Jane Doe Deer's Business Answers's Post: You may email the west law on that case and that would be greatXXX@XXXXXX.XXX. I needed a password XXXXX print it myself.
Thank You Beau
Expert:  Jane Doe Deer replied 6 years ago.

Which case? And will that be your last follow-up question?

Jane

JustAnswer in the News:

 
 
 
Ask-a-doc Web sites: If you've got a quick question, you can try to get an answer from sites that say they have various specialists on hand to give quick answers... Justanswer.com.
JustAnswer.com...has seen a spike since October in legal questions from readers about layoffs, unemployment and severance.
Web sites like justanswer.com/legal
...leave nothing to chance.
Traffic on JustAnswer rose 14 percent...and had nearly 400,000 page views in 30 days...inquiries related to stress, high blood pressure, drinking and heart pain jumped 33 percent.
Tory Johnson, GMA Workplace Contributor, discusses work-from-home jobs, such as JustAnswer in which verified Experts answer people’s questions.
I will tell you that...the things you have to go through to be an Expert are quite rigorous.
 
 
 

What Customers are Saying:

 
 
 
  • Mr. Kaplun clearly had an exceptional understanding of the issue and was able to explain it concisely. I would recommend JustAnswer to anyone. Great service that lives up to its promises! Gary B. Edmond, OK
< Last | Next >
  • Mr. Kaplun clearly had an exceptional understanding of the issue and was able to explain it concisely. I would recommend JustAnswer to anyone. Great service that lives up to its promises! Gary B. Edmond, OK
  • My Expert was fast and seemed to have the answer to my taser question at the tips of her fingers. Communication was excellent. I left feeling confident in her answer. Eric Redwood City, CA
  • I am very pleased with JustAnswer as a place to go for divorce or criminal law knowledge and insight. Michael Wichita, KS
  • PaulMJD helped me with questions I had regarding an urgent legal matter. His answers were excellent. Three H. Houston, TX
  • Anne was extremely helpful. Her information put me in the right direction for action that kept me legal, possible saving me a ton of money in the future. Thank you again, Anne!! Elaine Atlanta, GA
  • It worked great. I had the facts and I presented them to my ex-landlord and she folded and returned my deposit. The 50 bucks I spent with you solved my problem. Tony Apopka, FL
  • Wonderful service, prompt, efficient, and accurate. Couldn't have asked for more. I cannot thank you enough for your help. Mary C. Freshfield, Liverpool, UK
 
 
 

Meet The Experts:

 
 
 
  • Law Pro

    Attorney

    Satisfied Customers:

    1426
    20 years experience in business law - sole proprietor, partnership, and corporations
< Last | Next >
  • http://ww2.justanswer.com/uploads/LA/lawpro/2012-6-25_171315_PT206740s.64x64.jpg Law Pro's Avatar

    Law Pro

    Attorney

    Satisfied Customers:

    1426
    20 years experience in business law - sole proprietor, partnership, and corporations
  • http://ww2.justanswer.com/uploads/DC/DCraneEsq/2012-8-14_14436_DCrane.64x64.jpg MShore Law's Avatar

    MShore Law

    Attorney

    Satisfied Customers:

    1233
    Drafted Negotiated and/or Reviewed Thousands of Commercial Agreements
  • http://ww2.justanswer.com/uploads/FL/FLAandNYLawyer/2012-1-27_14349_3Fotolia25855429M.64x64.jpg FiveStarLaw's Avatar

    FiveStarLaw

    Attorney

    Satisfied Customers:

    1162
    25 years of experience helping people like you.
  • http://ww2.justanswer.com/uploads/dkaplun/2009-05-17_173121_headshot_1_2.jpg Dimitry K., Esq.'s Avatar

    Dimitry K., Esq.

    Attorney

    Satisfied Customers:

    1142
    Run my own successful business/contract law practice.
  • http://ww2.justanswer.com/uploads/ohioatty/2009-1-22_185545_me.jpg J.Hazelbaker's Avatar

    J.Hazelbaker

    Attorney

    Satisfied Customers:

    393
    Experienced and trained in the area of business law.
  • http://ww2.justanswer.com/uploads/scottymacesq/2009-6-10_221523_small.jpg RGMacEsq's Avatar

    RGMacEsq

    Attorney

    Satisfied Customers:

    393
    Licensed Texas General Practice Attorney
  • http://ww2.justanswer.com/uploads/BA/barristerinky/2012-6-10_22423_office.64x64.jpg Barrister's Avatar

    Barrister

    Attorney

    Satisfied Customers:

    301
    13 years practicing attorney, MBA
 
 
 

Related Business Law Questions