Category Archives: Residential Real Estate

As we discuss here and here, title insurance provides a lifetime of coverage to the insured owner, and covenants in a general warranty deed also last forever.  This is true, however, only as to losses sustained by the insured under a title insurance policy and the grantee under a general warranty deed, and essentially as to no other party.  Let me explain.

Title insurance

An owner’s policy of title insurance is a one-time premium in exchange for permanent coverage of losses sustained by the insured.  And what this means is that coverage is in place as to both (a) losses sustained by the insured while he is the owner of the property and (b) claims against the insured after he  conveys the property by general warranty deed (only as to claims that existed before the policy was issued).

Warranty covenants

Similarly, when a grantee acquires title to real property from a grantor by a limited warranty deed or a general warranty deed, he benefits from those covenants forever (read about different warranty covenants here).  This extends beyond his ownership of the property to claimants who acquire the property through a chain of warranty covenants.  Each owner can sue “up the chain” to the grantor who conveyed property to him or her up to the party who first created the title problem.  This “chain” is created and maintained by successive general warranty deeds.

Breaking the chain

But the benefits of both of these forms of indemnity are destroyed when a grantor deeds property to another by limited warranty deed or quit claim deed.  This is because the insured, or grantee under a warranty deed, no longer has a risk or “an insurable interest” in title to the property when  he conveys the property away by quit claim deed.  And since a limited warranty deed only applies to title problems arising after the grantor acquired title, there is nothing to blame on anyone else “up the chain”.  Because that grantee can’t claim “up the chain,” the insured no longer has liability.  And further, since the insurance or warranty covenant covers only the grantee’s or insureds “risk,” and he no longer has any exposure, there is nothing to insure or against which to indemnify.

Insured’s estate planning or asset planning

Many times, an owner of real property will convey property into his own limited liability company or estate planning trust for liability protection or tax benefits.  And in doing so, whether on their own or through their attorney, the owner transfers the property by quit claim deed.  That’s effective to transfer real estate, but all of the benefit of the title insurance (that someone paid good money for) or the warranty deed is completely, unconditionally and forever destroyed.

A better option: General Warranty Deed

Thus, when conveying property between an owner, and his trust or his own LLC, it is advisable to do so by means of a general warranty deed, thus preserving all benefits acquired by an owner’s policy of title insurance or general warranty covenants.

 

The hot topic today in Ohio real estate law is the problem for sellers and Realtors of buyers backing out of residential purchase contracts and thus, after tying up a property for 15 to 30 days, putting the property back on the market for sale. This creates the problem of a “stale” listing and the further problem of other Realtors and buyers asking “what was wrong with that property that Buyer #1 backed out?”

How can your seller avoid this problem?

Defining the problem

First, let’s define the problem.  In today’s hot real estate market, residential properties come on the market and days or even hours later they are under contract and unavailable.  Buyers, fearful of missing out on a deal, have met this challenge by quickly placing a property under contract, figuring they could make their “real decision” during the inspection or financing contingency periods.

Thus, after 10 to 20 days, they perform their home inspection and decide — perhaps for no valid reason — to terminate the contract, leaving the seller holding the bag after having wasted that two to four weeks of prime marketing season.

So, I have had prominent Realtors ask me: What can sellers do to prevent this?  Here’s some perspectives:

Contracts mean something

As a starting proposition, even though the CABR Contract has some holes (read here) and contingencies (inspection, financing, etc.) can provide an “out,” contracts actually mean something. In other words, contracts are written to be enforced (i.e., use as a basis for a law suit), not to be put on a shelf.

If a buyer has not threaded the needle in terms of properly terminating a contract pursuant to a contingency, then the buyer is obligated to perform.  If he fails to, he can be sued for either specific performance (i.e., make him buy) or money damages for their breach.

Earnest money does not define or limit damages available

Here are two blog entries I have written on earnest money under Ohio real estate law:

• https://finneylawfirm.com/legal_resources/real-estate-101-earnest-money-and-escrow-deposits/
• https://finneylawfirm.com/legal_resources/myth-buster-further-on-earnest-money/

The pertinent language I want to highlight is:

• “a common misunderstanding of parties to a purchase contract is that the escrow money is some sort of measure of or limitation on damages for the buyer’s breach, or, conversely, that the return of the earnest money “cures” the seller’s breach and is the limitation on his damages as well. However, unless the real estate purchase contract specifically calls out either of those limitations, neither of those propositions is true.”
• “This article seeks to bust a common myth about an escrow deposit: That a seller must return the earnest money of a buyer he claims is in breach before selling the home to a second buyer.”

Thus, forfeiture of the buyer’s earnest money in the event of a clear default is not the default remedy — although many times the parties settle for that.  The Buyer has open-ended exposure for the seller’s damages arising from a breach.

Residential property litigation is rarely cost-effective

For a host of reasons (see this blog entry), litigation is typically not cost-effective, meaning that frequently the cost of litigation will exceed the recovery.  This is so because (a) litigation is so incredibly expensive, (b) the damages recovery available to a seller are both difficult to determine and many times lower than a seller might anticipate, and (c) the outcome of litigation is incredibly unpredictable.  I tell clients that many times they would be better taking their money to the casino and betting it than investing in litigation.

However, using the cudgel of threatened or actual litigation can  either help (a) force a buyer to close or (b) leverage a favorable settlement for the seller in the event of breach.

Practical solutions

In a typical arm’s length purchase contract in the greater Cincinnati marketplace, the buyer has an inspection and a financing contingency, and places a low ($1,000 or less) in escrow with the buyer’s broker at the time of contract signing that is refundable if the contingencies are not fulfilled.

But in today’s “Seller’s market,” there’s nothing to say that a seller cannot demand a better position in the purchase contract to address the “backing out” problem.

• Get more earnest money.
• Limit the contingency period so the time “off market” is reduced.  (When I am a seller, this is paramount to me.  Don’t waste my time if you are not serious.)
• More due diligence on the buyers to “know” they are serious (are they prequalified?, are the planning to buy and flip?, do they have a house they themselves need to sell first before buying?, what is their background?).
• Did the buyer actually look at the property before making an offer?  This is a sure sign of a buyer who intends to “make his decision” at a later date.
• Deal only with serious agents and serious brokerages on the other side.  In my experience, buyers are going to find a broker who meets their profile.  Flaky agent, flaky company = flaky buyer.
• Make earnest money non-refundable and even payable directly to the seller, not in escrow.
• Have the home pre-inspected, and have the buyer use that inspection report, thus no contingency needed.
• Sue to obtain actual damages or to intimidate a buyer into closing.

Conclusion

We have a problem of balancing the legitimate interests between (a) the seller not wanting unserious buyers tying up their property on the one hand, and (b) buyers legitimately needing to “kick the tires” before closing on the other hand.  This balance in a traditional purchase contract is heavily tilted to buyers to give them an open-ended opportunity to walk away during the contingency periods.  It doesn’t have to be that way.  Sellers can “tighten things up” in a purchase contract to tilt that equation more in their own direction.

As lawyers experienced in Ohio real estate  law, we get  calls from existing and new clients nearly daily with the problem du  jour.  We have seen mortgage fraud, we have seen fraudulent deeds, we have seen predatory lenders, and we have seen home builders go bust.

The calls we are getting lately (other than complaints  about basements leaking from all the rain), seem to be centered on shoddy home renovation projects.

Why?

We are never certain why one set of calls prevails over another, and sometimes with a small firm such as ours, it is just the “luck of the draw.”

But we surmise that with the red-hot real estate market, plenty of rehabbers  have newly entered the marketplace, and plenty of them don’t have  an experienced corral of professional subcontractors —  carpenters, electricians, plumbers, HVAC contractors, roofers, etc. –to do the work.  Or contractors and subcontractors are simply over-committing.  As a result, deadlines are not being met, and quality is dropping as contractors farm out work to entirely inexperienced subs.

The problem

This leads to the problems that deadlines are being missed, the quality of work is shoddy, and followup on warranty and punch list items is slow or non-existent.

The dispute

As with everyone else performing services,  the contractor wants to be paid.  But if the work is late and sub-standard, how is a homeowner to respond?  If it’s non-payment, the contractor many times quickly resorts to filing a mechanics lien as the “check mate” of a construction dispute.

But a lien is not the  end of the story.  A lien is merely a claim or an assertion by the contractor of what he is owed, and the property  owner can successfully fight it if it not  well-grounded.  Now a lien can cause title problems, and thus foul up the construction loan disbursements for the remainder of the work.  But if the client has some financial flexibility, a lien problem can be worked around.

From our experience, the key to a contractor dispute is as much an accounting problem as it is a legal problem: What was the original price of the work, what were the agreed change orders, and what other adjustments are appropriate?

A poor foundation

As is discussed here and here, a construction contract can be either a fixed-price contract, a cost-plus contract, or a hybrid thereof.  If a contract is straight cost-plus with no controls built in, a home buyer or renovator could be in for a rude awakening at the time of financial reconciliation.  A fixed price contract, however, may many times only adjust  with a written change order.

But  even worse than cost escalators is a contract that has no clear “beginning point,” in other words it states that in exchange for “X” amount of money, the home owner will pay “Y” cost.  But if “X” is not clearly defined  — the product to the built for that fixed consideration — enforcement of the contract becomes a mish-mash of he-said, she-said allegation.  Simply imagine if you were the Judge  or a  Juror deciding how much money is owing when (a) the parties have failed to state at the outset what the builder was giving in exchange for the payment from t he buyer? (b) change orders were not properly agreed upon  and documented, but in some instances  asked for and performed? These tasks are incredibly difficult for a fact-finder and thus require tremendous factual development to properly present.

Conclusion

The summation of this problem is: First, don’t assume someone has industry knowledge and experience just because they hold themselves our as experienced and knowledgeable on  the internet  or otherwise.   Check references and inspect their prior projects.  Talk to their former customers about cleanliness of the worksite, quality of work, and timely perrformance.

Second, carefully document the contractual agreement  with the Contractor from the first day of  the project to  the last.  Third, continuously monitor the  contractor’s performance and don’t accept half-solutions and shoddy work.

If you want our help writing the contact, that is fine, but  certainly if you run into  contract  disputes, consult our experiences attorneys.  I suggest  Eli Kraft-Jacobs (513.797.2853) to help with your construction disputes.

.

 

Powers of attorney are written authorizations to represent or act on another person’s behalf.  The person granting the authorization is the principal and the person to whom authorization is granted is the agent.  A standard power of attorney gives the agent the authority to act immediately and identifies the specific powers that the agent may exercise.  In the case of springing powers of attorney, the document will identify the triggering event that gives the agent the authority to act at some point in the future.

These documents can be immensely useful for a principal suffering from an incapacity, which is to say, an individual who: (1) has an impaired ability to receive and evaluate information, (2) is missing, (3) is detained, be it in the penal system or otherwise, or (4) is outside of the United States and unable to return.  Notwithstanding the cause of the principal’s incapacity, the agent (if given the relevant authority in the power of attorney) may make financial decisions for the principal, purchase or sell property on behalf of the principal, make healthcare decisions, etc.  All of those actions, however, are prevented when the relevant bank, title agency, or healthcare provider wrongfully rejects a lawful power of attorney.

Lawful powers of attorney are often rejected for inane reasons including preparing the power of attorney more than six months prior to the date that the agent presents it or naming a second or successor agent.  Responding to the concerns of the constituency, members of the Ohio House of Representatives recently sponsored House Bill (H.B.) No. 446, which operates to remedy the all-too-common practice of rejecting lawful powers of attorney.  The bill does not alter language in the Ohio Revised Code, but rather, it adds the following to Chapter 1337:

(A)       As used in this section, “acknowledged” means verified before a notary public or other individual authorized to take acknowledgements.

(B)       A person shall not refuse to accept an acknowledged power of attorney for a transaction, or require an additional or different form of power of attorney for any authority granted in a statutory form power of attorney, unless one of the following applies:

• The person has actual knowledge of the termination of the agent’s authority or of the power of attorney.
• The person in good faith believes that the transaction is outside the scope of the authority granted to the agent in the power of attorney.
• The person in good faith believes that the power of attorney is not valid.

(C)       A person that fails to comply with this section is subject to both of the following:

• A court order mandating the acceptance of the power of attorney;
• Liability for reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in any action or proceeding that confirms the validity of the power of attorney or mandates acceptance of the power of attorney.

On January 16, 2018, the Ohio House of Representatives referred H.B. 446 to the Civil Justice Committee, which is where the bill remains today.  The Committee held its first hearing regarding the same on January 24, 2018.

The primary sponsors of the bill are Rep. William Seitz (R) and Rep. John Rogers (D).  The co-sponsors are Rep. Nickie Antonio (D), Rep. John Becker (R), Rep. John Boccieri (D), Rep. Nicholas Celebrezze (D), Rep. Teresa Fedor (D), Rep. Bernadine Kent (D), Rep. Michael Sheehy (D), and Rep. Kent Smith (D).