[WSBARP] unique provision of a purchase and sale agreement.

Wed Jun 5 15:41:03 PDT 2019

The provision was more of an option.  It provided that the buyer must provide notice to seller of their intent to remove the improvement/house and then the seller had 10 days to accept then 60 days to remove from land.

From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> On Behalf Of Eric Lanza
Sent: Wednesday, June 5, 2019 1:27 PM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] unique provision of a purchase and sale agreement.

Was the ability to re-purchase improvements phrased as a right of first refusal? Or does it more resemble an option to purchase?

I think the open-endedness of the provision might cause trouble for the other side to enforce it as a valid option to purchase.

Also, all encumbrances/interests in real estate must be by deed per 64.04.010.

If they wanted to make that right enforceable, that right to re-purchase (or a limitation on Buyer’s ability to exercise rights incidental to fee ownership) should have been crafted as a deed restriction or some acknowledged document that reserved seller’s lingering interest in the property (?)

Eric J. Lanza, J.D.

[cid:image001.png at 01D51BB5.142BE830]

From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com>> On Behalf Of Craig Blackmon
Sent: Wednesday, June 5, 2019 12:59 PM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] unique provision of a purchase and sale agreement.

Interesting!!! And you're right, quite foreseeable.

I see no SOL issue because breach just happened. That said, if the agreement had no end date, would that violate the Rule Against Perpetuities? I think the real issue is damages. What financial loss did your client suffer as a result of the breach?  Absent a liquidated damages term, I don't think they can recover, notwithstanding the obvious emotional distress. Not on a breach of contract action, and likely not any tort claim either.

I hope that helps. I look forward to other thoughts.

Craig
Craig Blackmon, Attorney at Law
Seattle Real Estate Lawyer<http://www.seattlepropertylawyer.com/>
92 Lenora St. (The Makers Space, a shared work environment)
Seattle WA 98121
Office/Cell: (206) 369-5949   Fax: (206) 770-7328
@LawyerBroker<https://twitter.com/LawyerBroker>
How to Buy Without an Agent<http://www.seattlepropertylawyer.com/blog?category=Buy+without+an+Agent> | How to Sell FSBO<http://www.seattlepropertylawyer.com/blog?category=Sell+FSBO> | RE Glossary<http://www.seattlepropertylawyer.com/blog?category=Real+Estate+Glossary>
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication is a private, confidential electronic communication encompassed by 18 USC 2510. It is for the sole use of the intended recipient and receipt by anyone other than the intended recipient does not constitute a loss of its confidential or privileged nature.  Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient please inform the sender and destroy all copies.

On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 12:43 PM Kristina Driessen <kristina at rdattys.comcastbiz.net<mailto:kristina at rdattys.comcastbiz.net>> wrote:

I have a purchase and sale agreement dated 1997.  The provision essentially states that the seller will have the ability to re-purchase "improvements' of the property at "some future time." The buyer was to give notice to seller if and when he ever had plans to remove the improvements/home [family home of seller]. The transaction closed.  However, the agreement stated that this provision will

would survive closing.

The property was a home and lot. The value was in the land as it is deemed commercial.  However, the buyer had the full ability to use the home/improvements until he elected to remove to build a commercial structure.

As one would guess the buyer tore the house down with out any notice to seller. This occurred in the last few month.

So we are looking at a situation 12 years post closing.  Thoughts ?..........and/or does the statute of limitations prohibit

Kristina A. Driessen

Attorney at Law

"A" Street Legal Services, Inc. P.S.

16 A Street SE,

Auburn, WA 98002

Office:           253-939-0811

Website:       astreetlegalservices. com

***Disclaimer: Please note that RPPT listserv participation is not restricted to practicing attorneys and may include non-practicing attorneys, law students, professionals working in related fields, and others.***

_______________________________________________
WSBARP mailing list
WSBARP at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto: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/20190605/0c4a7d8a/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 184959 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20190605/0c4a7d8a/image001.png>