[WSBARP] Earnest Money Deposit Issue

[Kary Krismer]

I would agree with Eric, but also point out that you should probably 
review the offer carefully to make sure it was properly filled in and 
enforceable before some buyer's attorney gets involved doing the same 
thing.  Annie has been focusing a lot on Form 17 lately in her agent 
education, and there are very few transactions that have properly filled 
in Form 17s if you use the strictest standards and some contracts don't 
even have valid legal descriptions.

I would also question whether the contract survives the death of the 
seller.  I don't remember the answer to that question.

Kary L. Krismer
206 723-2148

On 5/8/2018 4:18 PM, Eric Nelsen wrote:
>
> I don't think an offer/ask to rescind is a breach of the PSA, so 
> Seller isn't entitled to the EM. Seller just needs to reject the offer 
> to rescind and inform Buyer that the Seller Estate intends to close as 
> agreed. Unless Buyer actually says something affirmative like "I'm not 
> going to close on this," I don't think you have anticipatory breach.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Eric
>
> Eric C. Nelsen
>
> SAYRE LAW OFFICES, PLLC
>
> 1417 31st Ave South
>
> Seattle WA  98144-3909
>
> phone 206-625-0092
>
> fax 206-625-9040
>
> *From:*wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com 
> [mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com] *On Behalf Of *David Faber
> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 08, 2018 4:01 PM
> *To:* wsbarp
> *Subject:* [WSBARP] Earnest Money Deposit Issue
>
> List:
>
> I'm representing the PR of an estate for a decedent who was under 
> contract for the sale of real property here in Jefferson County at the 
> time of death. When Buyer (B) was informed that seller had died, B 
> signed and transmitted a MLS form 51 Rescission Agreement attempting 
> to beg out of the PSA and for the refund of the earnest money deposit. 
> I was, quite frankly, surprised to see B try to rescind considering 
> the closing date on the PSA is not until later June and there was no 
> notification to B that the estate would be unable to close the 
> transaction as the successor-in-interest to the decedent. PR now want 
> to boot B out of the transaction but keep the earnest money deposit as 
> liquidated damages under the theory that B signing the rescission 
> agreement is sufficient to indicate that B intends to fail without 
> cause to close the transaction. Either way, PR is quite annoyed by B 
> for rushing to exit the PSA when their father died.
>
> I am unable to find case law on point here and wondering if anyone has 
> any thoughts or would be willing to discuss this issue with me?
>
>
> Best,
>
> David J. Faber
>
> Faber Feinson PLLC
>
> 210 Polk Street, Suite 1
>
> Port Townsend, WA 98368
> (360) 379-4110
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WSBARP mailing list
> WSBARP at lists.wsbarppt.com
> http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbarp

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20180509/03509ca9/attachment.html>