Lexplug logoLexplug

Homler v. Malas

Court of Appeals of Georgia
229 Ga. App. 390, 494 S.E.2d 18 (1997)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A real estate contract containing a financing contingency clause is unenforceable for being too vague and indefinite if it fails to specify an essential term, such as the interest rate of the loan to be obtained.


Facts:

  • Robert Homier and Barbara Homier entered into an agreement to sell their single-family residence to Mohannad Malas.
  • The parties used a pre-printed contract form which included a financing contingency clause.
  • This clause conditioned the sale on Malas 'obtaining' a loan for 80% of the purchase price with a term of at least 30 years.
  • The blank spaces in the contract designated for the loan's interest rate were never filled in.
  • Malas paid $25,000 in earnest money, which was held by the real estate agent, Harry Norman Realtors.
  • Malas did not obtain a loan and did not complete the purchase of the residence.

Procedural Posture:

  • Robert and Barbara Homier sued Mohannad Malas in the superior court (trial court) for breach of contract.
  • The defendant broker, Harry Norman Realtors, interpleaded the $25,000 earnest money into the court's registry.
  • Malas filed a counterclaim against the Homiers and a cross-claim against Harry Norman Realtors for the return of the earnest money.
  • Malas moved for summary judgment, arguing the contract was unenforceable due to vagueness.
  • The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Malas on both the Homiers' claim and his counterclaim for the return of the earnest money.
  • The Homiers, as appellants, appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the Georgia Court of Appeals (intermediate appellate court).

Locked

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 contract's financing contingency clause, which fails to specify an interest rate for the loan the buyer must obtain, render the contract too vague and indefinite to be enforceable?


Opinions:

Majority - McMurray, Presiding Judge

Yes, the contract is too vague and indefinite to be enforceable. A financing contingency clause that fails to specify the interest rate for the buyer's loan causes a failure of a condition precedent, making the contract unenforceable. The appellate courts of Georgia have consistently held that the interest rate is an essential term necessary for the courts to enforce the agreement between a buyer and seller. While some contracts have been upheld where the interest rate was incorporated by reference to an ascertainable standard, such as the 'prevailing interest rate,' the contract in this case contained no such reference; the spaces were simply left blank. Therefore, the contract is void for vagueness.



Analysis:

This case reaffirms the strict requirement in Georgia contract law for definiteness of essential terms, particularly in real estate transactions involving financing contingencies. The decision serves as a clear precedent that omitting the interest rate is a fatal defect that voids the contract, rather than an ambiguity that can be resolved by a court. This holding protects buyers from being bound to a contract where they could be forced to accept a loan at any unspecified, potentially unfavorable, interest rate. For legal practitioners and real estate agents, it underscores the critical importance of ensuring all essential terms are explicitly defined in purchase agreements to create a binding and enforceable contract.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Homler v. Malas (1997) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Homler v. Malas