Crown Property Development, Inc. v. Omega Oil Co.
113 Ohio App.3d 647, 1996 Ohio App. LEXIS 3583, 681 N.E.2d 1343 (1996)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A real estate contract that is explicitly contingent upon the buyer obtaining financing by a specific date, and which provides for closing within a set time after all contingencies are met, automatically terminates when the buyer fails to meet or waive the financing contingency by the deadline. An ongoing, non-time-limited obligation, such as environmental remediation, does not override a specific, dated contingency unless the contract language clearly makes it a condition precedent to closing.
Facts:
- On June 2, 1989, the principals of Crown Property Development, Inc. entered into a contract to purchase approximately five acres of land from Omega Oil Company.
- The contract was contingent upon the buyer acquiring financing by a certain date and the seller, Omega, removing buried tanks from the property.
- After the contract was signed, significant environmental contamination from leaking tanks was discovered on the property.
- The parties executed five written amendments to the contract, each of which extended the deadline for the buyer's financing contingency. Crown's president later testified that these extensions were sought to provide more time to assess the environmental problem, not because of financing issues.
- The third amendment made Omega responsible for the ongoing environmental remediation and gave Crown the right to terminate if it was unsatisfied with the cleanup.
- Omega refused Crown's request to extend the financing contingency a sixth time beyond the final September 1, 1991 deadline.
- The September 1, 1991 deadline passed without Crown meeting or waiving the financing contingency, and the parties never closed on the property.
- On February 26, 1992, Omega sold a portion of the property to a third party.
Procedural Posture:
- Crown Property Development, Inc. filed a complaint against Omega Oil Company in the Fayette County Court of Common Pleas (a trial court) for breach of contract, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and other torts.
- Omega filed a motion for summary judgment on all claims.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Omega on the breach of contract, fraud, and negligent misrepresentation claims, but denied it for the remaining tort claims.
- Thirteen months later, Omega filed a motion to dismiss the remaining claims for failure to prosecute.
- The trial court granted the motion and dismissed the remainder of the case with prejudice.
- Crown (as appellant) appealed the dismissal and the summary judgment ruling to the Court of Appeals of Ohio (an intermediate appellate court). Omega (as appellee) cross-appealed the denial of summary judgment on its trespass and nuisance claims.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a real estate purchase contract, which states it will close within 30 days after contingencies are met or released, terminate by its own terms when the buyer fails to satisfy or waive a specific, time-limited financing contingency, even if the buyer claims another ongoing obligation (environmental remediation) was the true condition precedent to closing?
Opinions:
Majority - Young, J.
Yes, the contract terminated by its own terms. The court held that the contract's language was unambiguous, stating that the transaction must close within 30 days after all contingencies are met or released. The financing contingency had a specific, final deadline of September 1, 1991, which was not met or waived by Crown. In contrast, the environmental remediation provision contained no deadline and was explicitly described as an 'ongoing process,' not a condition precedent that had to be completed before closing. Because Crown failed to satisfy the time-limited financing contingency, the contract lapsed. The court also affirmed summary judgment on the fraud and misrepresentation claims, finding Crown's reliance on an alleged oral promise of a 'right of first refusal' was not justifiable when the contract required written amendments and all prior extensions had been in writing.
Analysis:
This decision underscores the judicial principle of enforcing the plain and unambiguous terms of a written contract. It serves as a precedent against using one contractual contingency as a proxy for an unstated condition, reinforcing that courts will not rewrite agreements to reflect a party's subjective intentions. The ruling highlights the risk for a party that allows a specific, time-limited condition to expire while waiting for an unrelated, open-ended obligation to be resolved. This case reinforces the importance of precise contract drafting, ensuring that all true conditions precedent are explicitly stated as such to avoid unintended termination of the agreement.
