Local attorney trying to block sale of home to Tre White

[Kwai San]

1 hour ago, SectionC3 said:

 

This is a typical lawyer move.  Trying to squeeze the doc who owns the house for a little bit of cash.  Three days of planning?  Not worth much.  Boo hoo.  It’s just a conniving power play by a couple of guys who are like Martin Prince on the Simpsons.  

 

Also, it is a gorgeous house.  Objectively I can’t say I blame the Cercones for being upset.  It lingered on the market for awhile, but well appointed and good value.  I liked it a lot when I looked at it.  Just didn’t like the taxes. 

 

Never mind...

Edited October 27, 2020 by Kwai San

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

29 minutes ago, teef said:

this even strikes me as a bit low for a house that value.

I’m sure they let you pay more 🤷‍♂️ 

[SoTier]

55 minutes ago, Motorin' said:

 

Yeah, I doubt the broker told Tre "you know what, we have a legal contract, but screw them." And if the broker were the one's who broke the contract without Tre's knowledge of the initial buyers, then Tre will be held blameless.  Which is probably why he is not named in the law suit. 

 

Tre isn't being sued.  It's the real estate reps for the seller and the seller.   If this hadn't involved a Bills player, it wouldn't have even been in the news even in Buffalo Business First.

 

My guess is that Tre is purchasing this house with/for family, so ilikely by the time they decided to make an offer on the house, it was already under contract, but instead of being honest about it, the seller's agent tried to con the buyers into upping their offer.  When they didn't, the agent and seller tried to sell the house to Tre.

[DrDawkinstein]

The listing with pics for anyone interested:

 

https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/11-Kingfisher-Ct_Orchard-Park_NY_14127_M46375-36717

 

Not too shabby for Buffalo

[Shaw66]

If the seller signed a contract with the first buyer, if the first buyer satisfied the conditions necessary to close, and if the seller signed a contract with White, the seller has a real problem.  

 

Each of the two buyers can compel the seller to sell to him - each of the two buyers is entitled to specific performance, because of the two buyers as an enforceable contract for the transfer of real estate.   At least theoretically, if the seller closes with either one of them, the other then can compel the seller to buy it back and then sell it to the second.   The price of the buy back is completely up to whoever just closed.   

 

So Tre pays $750,000 or whatever at the first closing, the other buyer can sue the seller, and the seller will have to buy the house back from Tre at whatever price Tre demands.  Then the seller will have to sell to the other buyer at whatever the contract price was.   

 

Chances are good that if there are two signed contracts, this will cost the seller some dough, like $100,000, to settle.  

[snafu]

4 hours ago, PirateHookerMD said:

"

• On Oct. 13, they were told the Smiths had accepted the offer. A fully executed contract was completed a day later."

I mean, if thats true, pretty straight forward case. 

 

The problem they will have is there are almost always ways to get out of a real-estate deal prior to closing. Sounds like the sellers were somewhat shady though. 

 

A lot of contracts are executed through the Broker, and the terms of the contract provide for a five day "attorney review" period, during which time the contract may be canceled. Perhaps that's the case here.  Not so cut and dry if this is true.

 

 

 

[Seasons1992]

5 hours ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said:

but, $23 grand in taxes per year 🤮 

 

I enjoyed my time at OPHS, dammit.....but wow that's a lot of tax.

[Augie]

9 hours ago, DabillsDaBillsDaBills said:

 

Can the sellers breach the contract with the original buyers and owe them damages ?

 

As long as all requirements were met, they can be sued for specific performance. We had a deal, the court will MAKE YOU do what the terms of the contract lay out.......unless something wasn’t perfectly executed. It will all come down to what’s in black and white in the contract, and they are all a little bit different. Should be easily decided, but when it comes to money and courts, it’s not always easy. 

 

.

9 hours ago, MAJBobby said:

On A Side note.  I would love to be in an area where a house like that is on the market for less than Multiple Millions.

 

No kidding! Remember: location, location.....and that other thing.

 

I went to a buddies last weekend to watch OSU game. I helped him find the house he’s in. It’s about 30 minutes away with no traffic (this is Atlanta, however). It’s worth about $100k less than our house.  If it was near our house it would be worth TWICE what our house is. It’s in a nice area,  but the location means everything and he’s farther outside of town.

 

Tre’s “maybe house” would be a crazy steal here under $800k.  

 

 

Edited October 28, 2020 by Augie

[Augie]

3 hours ago, DrDawkinstein said:

The listing with pics for anyone interested:

 

https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/11-Kingfisher-Ct_Orchard-Park_NY_14127_M46375-36717

 

Not too shabby for Buffalo

 

Not too shabby at all! I’m thinking of putting an offer in myself and see how it goes. Wish me luck!!!

[Blokestradamus]

1 hour ago, Augie said:

Not too shabby at all! I’m thinking of putting an offer in myself and see how it goes. Wish me luck!!!

 

Me turning up to put in an offer:

 

Edited October 27, 2020 by Blokestradamus

[Augie]

4 minutes ago, Blokestradamus said:

 

Augie turning to put in his offer:

 

 

WHOA!!! I’n not rich, and I appreciate a good deal! I was thinking of half of that because they seem to like accepting offers so much! 

 

My SIL and her doctor Ex met at Vanderbilt. Not stupid people........for the most part. When they went shopping for their first house they put in offers on 3-4 different places with different Realtors, giving about $5k per deposit. They wanted to “tie them up”. That could have been a disaster,  but they came out unscathed. 

 

No matter how smart you think you are, you never know what you don’t know. 

[Captain Caveman]

9 hours ago, PirateHookerMD said:

"

• On Oct. 13, they were told the Smiths had accepted the offer. A fully executed contract was completed a day later."

I mean, if thats true, pretty straight forward case. 

 

The problem they will have is there are almost always ways to get out of a real-estate deal prior to closing. Sounds like the sellers were somewhat shady though. 

Not really straightforward at all, my understanding (in the middle of a home purchase in NY state right now) is that you get 3 business days from the time the contract is signed for attorney review, during which time either party is able to back out for any reason.  

 

Is it unethical?  Yes.  Is it illegal?  No.  Lawsuit seems either vengeful or frivolous.

[ExiledInIllinois]

12 hours ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said:

Awesome house for $750K.... but, $23 grand in taxes per year 🤮 The taxes almost the same per month as a conventional mortgage would be. 

Cry me a river... Taxes on a house 1/8 that price is more than 1/8 that tax bill... And you don't nearly get the environment and services you do in the O.P.

 

Those are the ones who are footing the bill...

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

9 hours ago, ExiledInIllinois said:

Cry me a river... Taxes on a house 1/8 that price is more than 1/8 that tax bill... And you don't nearly get the environment and services you do in the O.P.

 

Those are the ones who are footing the bill...

im not crying, it’s just dumb. I don’t live there. I live somewhere with better environment and services where my 750k is actually an investment and taxes are less than half that. 

[ExiledInIllinois]

Just now, Over 29 years of fanhood said:

im not crying, it’s just dumb. I don’t live there. I live somewhere with better environment and services where my 750k is actually an investment and taxes are less than half that. 

Fair.   Give it 30, 40 years when the area starts to age.

[JohnC]

19 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

If the seller signed a contract with the first buyer, if the first buyer satisfied the conditions necessary to close, and if the seller signed a contract with White, the seller has a real problem.  

 

Each of the two buyers can compel the seller to sell to him - each of the two buyers is entitled to specific performance, because of the two buyers as an enforceable contract for the transfer of real estate.   At least theoretically, if the seller closes with either one of them, the other then can compel the seller to buy it back and then sell it to the second.   The price of the buy back is completely up to whoever just closed.   

 

So Tre pays $750,000 or whatever at the first closing, the other buyer can sue the seller, and the seller will have to buy the house back from Tre at whatever price Tre demands.  Then the seller will have to sell to the other buyer at whatever the contract price was.   

 

Chances are good that if there are two signed contracts, this will cost the seller some dough, like $100,000, to settle.  

Why would Tre want to get involved with this legal embroglio? The first buyer acted in good faith with his purchase. It was the seller who acted in bad faith when it appears he made another more lucrative deal while contractually obligated to the first buyer. Even if White has a legal case against the seller why get entangled with looming legal mess? This is civil legal matter. The legal process in this civil system takes time.  The best approach he should take is walk away from this morass and find another mansion.  

[Shaw66]

38 minutes ago, JohnC said:

Why would Tre want to get involved with this legal embroglio? The first buyer acted in good faith with his purchase. It was the seller who acted in bad faith when it appears he made another more lucrative deal while contractually obligated to the first buyer. Even if White has a legal case against the seller why get entangled with looming legal mess? This is civil legal matter. The legal process in this civil system takes time.  The best approach he should take is walk away from this morass and find another mansion.  

I agree with your take on this.  The rational thing to do here if you're second to the party is to get your deposit back and walk away.  Particularly in Tre's case, because he has plenty of dough.  Why would he want to be in the middle of this mess for a year or more?

 

What I was pointing out is that the litigious person in Tre's position could make the claim - it's a really solid claim, written contract for the sale of real estate, it's pretty black letter law - and the seller's lawyer is going to tell the seller that the best thing to do is to pay Tre to make him go away.  It's probably worth $50,000 or more if someone in Tre's position wanted to put up with the headache.  

[ICanSleepWhenI'mDead]

2 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

I agree with your take on this.  The rational thing to do here if you're second to the party is to get your deposit back and walk away.  Particularly in Tre's case, because he has plenty of dough.  Why would he want to be in the middle of this mess for a year or more?

 

What I was pointing out is that the litigious person in Tre's position could make the claim - it's a really solid claim, written contract for the sale of real estate, it's pretty black letter law - and the seller's lawyer is going to tell the seller that the best thing to do is to pay Tre to make him go away.  It's probably worth $50,000 or more if someone in Tre's position wanted to put up with the headache.  

 

According to my brother Darryl, Tre White is already in the middle of this mess, and can't just walk away.  He's a named defendant in the case.

 

You get that the lawyer who made the first offer to buy the house sued not just the current owners of the house, but also sued Tre White individually for tortious interference with contract, right?  The article at the link in the original post contains a copy of the summons and complaint in the case.  Scroll down and read the "First Claim For Relief" at page 11 of the 28 page document. 

 

We don't know whether or not Tre White was aware of the fully executed (i.e., fully signed) contract between the plaintiff and the current owners of the house when he made his own, later offer.  I don't know Orchard Park practice, but in many parts of the country, the listing agent will add "Sale Pending" or "Under Contract" to a yard sign to let other potential buyers know that although they are welcome to submit a back-up offer (which could be accepted if the already pending sale fell through for some reason), an existing contract for sale was already in place.  Even without changing the yard sign, it is certainly possible that the listing agent told Tre White or Tre White's agent about the pre-existing, fully signed contract before Tre or Tre's agent submitted Tre's own, later purchase offer.

 

If Tre somehow didn't know about the pre-existing, fully signed purchase offer from the first buyer, he will win the lawsuit brought against him.   Even if he did know about that pre-existing contract, he might still win the suit, but we would need to know more facts to evaluate his chances.

 

There's nothing wrong with submitting a back-up offer, and my guess is that the current owners or their listing agent are much more likely to be culpable here than Tre, but until more facts come out, that's all it is - - just a guess.

[Captain Caveman]

This whole thing is bizarre.  It seems a third attorney sent the seller a letter, claiming to represent the buyer cancelling the contract.  The buyer claims this was actually set up by the Seller as a way of getting out of the contract.

 

I'm not a lawyer, but if I'm reading it right, it appears the seller didn't formally cancel the contract during the Attorney Review period because they had received a letter cancelling the contract from an Attorney claiming to be representing the buyer, so they assumed it was already invalid.  The whole thing is very strange.

 

 

[KD in CA]

On 10/27/2020 at 8:22 AM, bigK14094 said:

I wonder if Tre spends enough time out of NY to not be a NYS resident.   That would mean big bucks to him.......home back down south?  Probabily not, w camps etc.  But, the season and training camp are well short of the 6 months required to be a resident.  I suspect that NYS has special rules on income tax for the professional athletes, but don't know that for sure. Never wondered about that before until this housing discussion.....I too think the signed contract is binding, unless there is a 48 hour escape clause hidden somewhere.

 

Good read here on that subject (and by Bills fans).  And I suspect the states have only upped their aggressive position on residency since this was written.

 

https://www.hodgsonruss.com/media/publication/129_12_2010 The Multistate Tax Quandary For Professional Athletes.pdf

[ExiledInIllinois]

1 hour ago, ICanSleepWhenI'mDead said:

 

According to my brother Darryl, Tre White is already in the middle of this mess, and can't just walk away.  He's a named defendant in the case.

 

You get that the lawyer who made the first offer to buy the house sued not just the current owners of the house, but also sued Tre White individually for tortious interference with contract, right?  The article at the link in the original post contains a copy of the summons and complaint in the case.  Scroll down and read the "First Claim For Relief" at page 11 of the 28 page document. 

 

We don't know whether or not Tre White was aware of the fully executed (i.e., fully signed) contract between the plaintiff and the current owners of the house when he made his own, later offer.  I don't know Orchard Park practice, but in many parts of the country, the listing agent will add "Sale Pending" or "Under Contract" to a yard sign to let other potential buyers know that although they are welcome to submit a back-up offer (which could be accepted if the already pending sale fell through for some reason), an existing contract for sale was already in place.  Even without changing the yard sign, it is certainly possible that the listing agent told Tre White or Tre White's agent about the pre-existing, fully signed contract before Tre or Tre's agent submitted Tre's own, later purchase offer.

 

If Tre somehow didn't know about the pre-existing, fully signed purchase offer from the first buyer, he will win the lawsuit brought against him.   Even if he did know about that pre-existing contract, he might still win the suit, but we would need to know more facts to evaluate his chances.

 

There's nothing wrong with submitting a back-up offer, and my guess is that the current owners or their listing agent are much more likely to be culpable here than Tre, but until more facts come out, that's all it is - - just a guess.

That's a pretty good post Larry!

What does Your other brother Darryl think?

[JohnC]

4 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

I agree with your take on this.  The rational thing to do here if you're second to the party is to get your deposit back and walk away.  Particularly in Tre's case, because he has plenty of dough.  Why would he want to be in the middle of this mess for a year or more?

 

What I was pointing out is that the litigious person in Tre's position could make the claim - it's a really solid claim, written contract for the sale of real estate, it's pretty black letter law - and the seller's lawyer is going to tell the seller that the best thing to do is to pay Tre to make him go away.  It's probably worth $50,000 or more if someone in Tre's position wanted to put up with the headache.  

A very long time ago my parents were involved in a similar situation only on a less pricy scale. My parents bought a house in North Buffalo and put money down and signed a purchase contract. The owners changed their mind and wanted to rescind the deal. My parents wanted the house because they had already made arrangements to move. The issue became a legal dispute. I vividly remember accompanying my mother who didn't speak English very well to the lawyer's office. The lawyer gave a clear and simple explanation of the situation and the strength of our position. He succinctly said we were legally right but it wasn't worth the time and expense to pursue it. He also stated that the lawyer for the seller told our lawyer that he told his clients that they were in the wrong. My parents wisely walked away and bought another house in the area. 

[ICanSleepWhenI'mDead]

1 hour ago, ExiledInIllinois said:

That's a pretty good post Larry!

What does Your other brother Darryl think?

 

He thinks I'm uglier than I used to be, but he hasn't been to the eye doctor in a while.

[Shaw66]

3 hours ago, ICanSleepWhenI'mDead said:

 

According to my brother Darryl, Tre White is already in the middle of this mess, and can't just walk away.  He's a named defendant in the case.

 

You get that the lawyer who made the first offer to buy the house sued not just the current owners of the house, but also sued Tre White individually for tortious interference with contract, right?  The article at the link in the original post contains a copy of the summons and complaint in the case.  Scroll down and read the "First Claim For Relief" at page 11 of the 28 page document. 

 

We don't know whether or not Tre White was aware of the fully executed (i.e., fully signed) contract between the plaintiff and the current owners of the house when he made his own, later offer.  I don't know Orchard Park practice, but in many parts of the country, the listing agent will add "Sale Pending" or "Under Contract" to a yard sign to let other potential buyers know that although they are welcome to submit a back-up offer (which could be accepted if the already pending sale fell through for some reason), an existing contract for sale was already in place.  Even without changing the yard sign, it is certainly possible that the listing agent told Tre White or Tre White's agent about the pre-existing, fully signed contract before Tre or Tre's agent submitted Tre's own, later purchase offer.

 

If Tre somehow didn't know about the pre-existing, fully signed purchase offer from the first buyer, he will win the lawsuit brought against him.   Even if he did know about that pre-existing contract, he might still win the suit, but we would need to know more facts to evaluate his chances.

 

There's nothing wrong with submitting a back-up offer, and my guess is that the current owners or their listing agent are much more likely to be culpable here than Tre, but until more facts come out, that's all it is - - just a guess.

No, I didn't read the article or the complaint.  Suing Tre for tortious interference is nonsense.   It's an overly aggressive lawyer trying to put as much pressure on the situation as possible.   Unless Tre actually forces a closing to occur, simply signing a contract to buy the house is not tortious interference with anyone.  If Tre doesn't try to close, he hasn't interfered with the other buyer's right to performance of the other buyer's contract.   Tre's got no exposure here, even if he knew the other contract existed.     

[Patience]

25 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

It's an overly aggressive lawyer trying to put as much pressure on the situation as possible.

 

This.

 

I have a unique perspective - I had the misfortune of working directly for this attorney (Cercone).  One of the worst human beings I've ever had the "pleasure" of meeting, let alone working for.

[Shaw66]

One more thing.   I read through the complaint.  I suspect that, as usual, there's more going on here than meets the eye.  

 

First, the complaint is really overblown.  They claim they suffered emotional distress because they can't buy their dream house, and they also have damages because they had begun to make plans to move.   Well, this all took place about six or seven days ago, so exactly how emotionally attached did they get to this house?   And what had they done to get ready to move?   And their children, oh, their children are suffering because they had their hearts set on this house.   Come on.   When I see a complaint like that, I'm embarrassed for lawyers.  

 

Second, there's stuff in the complaint about the seller's lawyer having approved the contract, and something that suggests the sellers had five days to get the approval.  In other words, the sellers had five days to cancel if their lawyer didn't like the deal.  The original contract was delivered on October 14, and a lawyer claiming to represent the sellers delivered a letter canceling the contract on the 20th.   Lawyers can argue about whether the five days are five business days or five calendar days.  If it's five business days, the cancellation letter was timely, because there's a weekend in there.   On top of that, it will be very important if the contract for purchase says "time is of the essence."  If it does, and if that reference is to every deadline in the contract, then missing the deadline is a problem for seller.  But if no "time is of the essence" provision applies to the five-day lawyer-approval window, then the cancellation notice on the sixth day is timely enough to be effective.   

 

My guess is that there is no time-is-of-the-essence provision, but I don't really know, and I don't know NYS law on the subject.  The reason I'm guessing is that the plaintiffs' lawyer put in all that nonsense about how they had already begun plans to move, the kids had their hearts set on it, blah, blah, blah, so they can show that they relied on the fact that the deadline came and passed.  What are they telling us, that up until midnight on the fifth day they hadn't made any plans to move, but when midnight came, they knew they had a deal and started furiously planning?   The fact is that before noon on the sixth day, they got the notice.   

 

I'm not saying who wins and who loses; all I'm saying is that there almost certainly are two sides to this story, and the plaintiffs' lawyer is only telling one side.   And almost certainly Tre didn't do anything wrong.   The sellers and their agent may have told them about the other contract and told them that contract was being canceled.  Tre doesn't have any obligation to investigate.  He's entitled to rely the representation of the sellers and their agent.   Tre's a defendant because the plaintiffs' lawyer thinks that if he makes a big enough mess out of this, he can force the sellers to sell to the plaintiffs.

 

Still, as we said earlier, simplest thing for Tre is to back out and find another house.  Or to tell the sellers that he'll stay in if the sellers pay his legal fees.  This is not Tre's problem.   

 

Meanwhile, there should be some full-page ads in the News informing the public who the lawyer is who sued Tre in the middle of the season.  

[Patience]

https://roncroftrealty.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/175/2019/11/Contract-of-Sale-Eff.-3_01_18-1.pdf

 

This is the standard residential real estate contract used in Erie County, and likely the one executed in this transaction.  I've only ever used this one in practice. 

[Shaw66]

25 minutes ago, Patience said:

https://roncroftrealty.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/175/2019/11/Contract-of-Sale-Eff.-3_01_18-1.pdf

 

This is the standard residential real estate contract used in Erie County, and likely the one executed in this transaction.  I've only ever used this one in practice. 

Thanks for this.   If anyone is interested in this crap, I think this confirms what I suspected.  

 

The provision requiring attorney approval creates a three business day time frame within which the contract can be canceled.   It appears that the cancellation notice from the attorney arrived the morning of the fourth business day. 

 

There is a provision about "time is of the essence," but it only applies to the closing.  By implication, time is NOT of the essence with respect to other time periods, so the sellers had a "reasonable time" after the deadline to still exercise the right to cancel based on the lawyer's review.  The morning of the fourth day is certainly a reasonable time.   

 

Having said that, there's probably New York case law about blowing deadlines like this, but unless that case law makes that three-business-day period iron-clad, from what we've seen I think there's a good chance the plaintiffs lose this, that their contract was in fact properly canceled, and that Tre probably can buy the house.  

 

To whom should I send my bill?

Edited October 28, 2020 by Shaw66

[Augie]

People will do crazy stuff when it comes to getting out of deals.

 

We had a buyer one time who got cold feet and wanted out of a house purchase he was committed to. The sellers, naturally, still insisted the deal close. He had already met his financing contingency, but he went out and leased a Mercedes with a monthly payment north of $800! There is a clause in the loan commitment allowing the lender to back out, in case you lose your job or something prior to closing. This met the criteria and he no longer qualified because he messed up his debt/income ratio, but he did have a sweet ride for a while! 

 

Another cute old guy said to us “you realize I’m 84 years old and you are giving me a 30 loan, right? Have you done the math there?”   Haha

 

 

.

Edited October 28, 2020 by Augie

[JohnC]

1 hour ago, Shaw66 said:

One more thing.   I read through the complaint.  I suspect that, as usual, there's more going on here than meets the eye.  

 

First, the complaint is really overblown.  They claim they suffered emotional distress because they can't buy their dream house, and they also have damages because they had begun to make plans to move.   Well, this all took place about six or seven days ago, so exactly how emotionally attached did they get to this house?   And what had they done to get ready to move?   And their children, oh, their children are suffering because they had their hearts set on this house.   Come on.   When I see a complaint like that, I'm embarrassed for lawyers.  

 

Second, there's stuff in the complaint about the seller's lawyer having approved the contract, and something that suggests the sellers had five days to get the approval.  In other words, the sellers had five days to cancel if their lawyer didn't like the deal.  The original contract was delivered on October 14, and a lawyer claiming to represent the sellers delivered a letter canceling the contract on the 20th.   Lawyers can argue about whether the five days are five business days or five calendar days.  If it's five business days, the cancellation letter was timely, because there's a weekend in there.   On top of that, it will be very important if the contract for purchase says "time is of the essence."  If it does, and if that reference is to every deadline in the contract, then missing the deadline is a problem for seller.  But if no "time is of the essence" provision applies to the five-day lawyer-approval window, then the cancellation notice on the sixth day is timely enough to be effective.   

 

My guess is that there is no time-is-of-the-essence provision, but I don't really know, and I don't know NYS law on the subject.  The reason I'm guessing is that the plaintiffs' lawyer put in all that nonsense about how they had already begun plans to move, the kids had their hearts set on it, blah, blah, blah, so they can show that they relied on the fact that the deadline came and passed.  What are they telling us, that up until midnight on the fifth day they hadn't made any plans to move, but when midnight came, they knew they had a deal and started furiously planning?   The fact is that before noon on the sixth day, they got the notice.   

 

I'm not saying who wins and who loses; all I'm saying is that there almost certainly are two sides to this story, and the plaintiffs' lawyer is only telling one side.   And almost certainly Tre didn't do anything wrong.   The sellers and their agent may have told them about the other contract and told them that contract was being canceled.  Tre doesn't have any obligation to investigate.  He's entitled to rely the representation of the sellers and their agent.   Tre's a defendant because the plaintiffs' lawyer thinks that if he makes a big enough mess out of this, he can force the sellers to sell to the plaintiffs.

 

Still, as we said earlier, simplest thing for Tre is to back out and find another house.  Or to tell the sellers that he'll stay in if the sellers pay his legal fees.  This is not Tre's problem.   

 

Meanwhile, there should be some full-page ads in the News informing the public who the lawyer is who sued Tre in the middle of the season.  

If the seller's contract stated five days needed for a legal review without specifying business days before the deal is completed then technically/b] the buyer has a case. Whether there is a "time is of the essence" clause or not I would think that the operating clause would relate to the days for legal review. One can assume that business days was the intention but the language/words in the contract didn't specify that. This is an example of sloppy contract writing. 

 

In my prior post I thought it would be wise for White to not get involved in this morass. It might also be wise for the seller to just go ahead and sell it to the first buyer and avoid the legal entanglement that will cost him more in legal fees and aggravation than he would gain from the higher offer he could have gotten from White.

 

Most lawyers are honorable people who are there to protect the interests of their clients. And some lawyers are sharks and obnoxious priiiiicks who are unyielding and not willing to come to some reasonable resolution. 

 

 

 

 

[Shaw66]

13 minutes ago, JohnC said:

If the seller's contract stated five days needed for a legal review without specifying business days before the deal is completed then technically/b] the buyer has a case. Whether there is a "time is of the essence" clause or not I would think that the operating clause would relate to the days for legal review. One can assume that business days was the intention but the language/words in the contract didn't specify that. This is an example of sloppy contract writing. 

 

In my prior post I thought it would be wise for White to not get involved in this morass. It might also be wise for the seller to just go ahead and sell it to the first buyer and avoid the legal entanglement that will cost him more in legal fees and aggravation than he would gain from the higher offer he could have gotten from White.

 

Most lawyers are honorable people who are there to protect the interests of their clients. And some lawyers are sharks and obnoxious priiiiicks who are unyielding and not willing to come to some reasonable resolution. 

 

 

 

 

The time is of the essence is specific to the closing.  

 

If the cancelation. Was void, as I would guess it is, then the seller closing with first buyer means the seller has to worry  that Tre will sue him. Not that i would advise that, but Tre would have case. 

 

The problem is the seller signed two contracts, and the seller is in a bind.  

 

 

[snafu]

2 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

One more thing.   I read through the complaint.  I suspect that, as usual, there's more going on here than meets the eye.  

 

First, the complaint is really overblown.  They claim they suffered emotional distress because they can't buy their dream house, and they also have damages because they had begun to make plans to move.   Well, this all took place about six or seven days ago, so exactly how emotionally attached did they get to this house?   And what had they done to get ready to move?   And their children, oh, their children are suffering because they had their hearts set on this house.   Come on.   When I see a complaint like that, I'm embarrassed for lawyers.  

 

Second, there's stuff in the complaint about the seller's lawyer having approved the contract, and something that suggests the sellers had five days to get the approval.  In other words, the sellers had five days to cancel if their lawyer didn't like the deal.  The original contract was delivered on October 14, and a lawyer claiming to represent the sellers delivered a letter canceling the contract on the 20th.   Lawyers can argue about whether the five days are five business days or five calendar days.  If it's five business days, the cancellation letter was timely, because there's a weekend in there.   On top of that, it will be very important if the contract for purchase says "time is of the essence."  If it does, and if that reference is to every deadline in the contract, then missing the deadline is a problem for seller.  But if no "time is of the essence" provision applies to the five-day lawyer-approval window, then the cancellation notice on the sixth day is timely enough to be effective.   

 

My guess is that there is no time-is-of-the-essence provision, but I don't really know, and I don't know NYS law on the subject.  The reason I'm guessing is that the plaintiffs' lawyer put in all that nonsense about how they had already begun plans to move, the kids had their hearts set on it, blah, blah, blah, so they can show that they relied on the fact that the deadline came and passed.  What are they telling us, that up until midnight on the fifth day they hadn't made any plans to move, but when midnight came, they knew they had a deal and started furiously planning?   The fact is that before noon on the sixth day, they got the notice.   

 

I'm not saying who wins and who loses; all I'm saying is that there almost certainly are two sides to this story, and the plaintiffs' lawyer is only telling one side.   And almost certainly Tre didn't do anything wrong.   The sellers and their agent may have told them about the other contract and told them that contract was being canceled.  Tre doesn't have any obligation to investigate.  He's entitled to rely the representation of the sellers and their agent.   Tre's a defendant because the plaintiffs' lawyer thinks that if he makes a big enough mess out of this, he can force the sellers to sell to the plaintiffs.

 

Still, as we said earlier, simplest thing for Tre is to back out and find another house.  Or to tell the sellers that he'll stay in if the sellers pay his legal fees.  This is not Tre's problem.   

 

Meanwhile, there should be some full-page ads in the News informing the public who the lawyer is who sued Tre in the middle of the season.  

 

It says a lot that they didn’t attach the contract to the complaint.

Not only that, they didn’t file a motion for an injunction, just the complaint. This is a pressure move by buyer #1. 

 

[Shaw66]

51 minutes ago, snafu said:

 

It says a lot that they didn’t attach the contract to the complaint.

Not only that, they didn’t file a motion for an injunction, just the complaint. This is a pressure move by buyer #1. 

 

Interesting.  So it's just sword rattling. 

[snafu]

10 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

Interesting.  So it's just sword rattling. 

 

You said it best: Tre should just walk away from this.  There are other houses out there to buy.  

I’d wager that’s exactly the plaintiff’s motivation. The plaintiff has no attorney fees to pay.

 

[Captain Caveman]

Tre doesn't really have any reason to walk away.  He's not in any jeopardy, and I'm sure he has a capable attorney who's handling all this for him.  These people were pissed that the contract was cancelled during attorney review (probably unethically, but not illegally) and are using the courts to throw a tantrum.  ***** 'em.

[snafu]

The defendants/sellers filed a motion to dismiss the case.  Looks like they canceled the contract within the 3 business days.

I’m not sure if this link will work:

 

https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/DocumentList?docketId=g/iLhEW89j4FlWR75Ca3ag==&display=all&courtType=Erie County Supreme Court&resultsPageNum=1

 

 

[Bermuda Triangle]

On 10/29/2020 at 9:15 PM, snafu said:

The defendants/sellers filed a motion to dismiss the case.  Looks like they canceled the contract within the 3 business days.

I’m not sure if this link will work:

 

https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/DocumentList?docketId=g/iLhEW89j4FlWR75Ca3ag==&display=all&courtType=Erie County Supreme Court&resultsPageNum=1

 

 

That motion to dismiss is so poorly drafted.  It reads as if it's written by a 12-year old, complete with poor grammar (and misspelling of the name of the attorney's own client!).  Proof read much?

 

The cancellation notice from the seller's attorney was timely delivered, apparently.

 

I'd be surprised if the case isn't withdrawn with respect to Tre in the very near future.  IMO, Tre was named as a defendant primarily to create some buzz and publicity...and it worked. If not for Tre's involvement, who would be talking about this?  Seems like an over-litigious attorney who is pissed off that he's not getting his way.  And lawyers wonder why they get a bad rap...

[Patience]

2 hours ago, Bermuda Triangle said:

That motion to dismiss is so poorly drafted.  It reads as if it's written by a 12-year old, complete with poor grammar (and misspelling of the name of the attorney's own client!).  Proof read much?

 

The cancellation notice from the seller's attorney was timely delivered, apparently.

 

I'd be surprised if the case isn't withdrawn with respect to Tre in the very near future.  IMO, Tre was named as a defendant primarily to create some buzz and publicity...and it worked. If not for Tre's involvement, who would be talking about this?  Seems like an over-litigious attorney who is pissed off that he's not getting his way.  And lawyers wonder why they get a bad rap...

 

Did you read the accompanying exhibits?  The first email from Marco indicates he intended to name the "new purchasers" before he knew that Tre White was that purchaser.  He asked the selling agent for their identities.  He always intended to name them.  Then in the second email he is confirming that it is Tre White, and in that email he does confirm he intended to go to the media. 

[Bermuda Triangle]

I did not read the exhibits, only the affirmation from defendant's counsel.

 

my understanding is that Tre subsequently cancelled his purchase contract, so I'm not sure why he is still a named defendant.

[JohnC]

12 hours ago, Bermuda Triangle said:

That motion to dismiss is so poorly drafted.  It reads as if it's written by a 12-year old, complete with poor grammar (and misspelling of the name of the attorney's own client!).  Proof read much?

 

The cancellation notice from the seller's attorney was timely delivered, apparently.

 

I'd be surprised if the case isn't withdrawn with respect to Tre in the very near future.  IMO, Tre was named as a defendant primarily to create some buzz and publicity...and it worked. If not for Tre's involvement, who would be talking about this?  Seems like an over-litigious attorney who is pissed off that he's not getting his way.  And lawyers wonder why they get a bad rap...the 

Would it be worthwhile for the seller and the legal rep to file a complaint to the bar against the first buyer who apparently was legally denied the purchase? The complaint probably won't have much consequences other than it would be on his record that a complaint was filed against him for questionable tactics.