Kalinowski v. Yeh
9 Haw. App. 473, 847 P.2d 673, 1993 Haw. App. LEXIS 27 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A party to a real estate contract cannot invoke a 'time is of the essence' clause to unilaterally cancel an agreement when their own actions or inability to perform caused the delay, particularly when the other party is ready and able to fulfill their obligations, and the property is considered unique, warranting specific performance.
Facts:
- On May 26, 1989, Jim and Lisa Yeh (Yehs) signed a Deposit, Receipt, Offer, and Acceptance (DROA) to purchase a new home in Mililani, Hawaii.
- The Yehs' offer to purchase the Mililani home was contingent upon the successful sale of their condominium unit in Salt Lake, Hawaii, and closing by July 30, 1989.
- On May 29, 1989, Harry and Adelaine Kalinowski (Kalinowskis) signed a DROA to purchase the Yehs' Salt Lake condominium unit for $150,000, with closing to occur "on or before July 27, 1989."
- The Salt Lake DROA included a standard "time is of the essence" clause, allowing a 30-day extension for non-performance due to reasons beyond a party's control, after which further extensions required written agreement.
- In late July 1989, the Kalinowskis, realizing they would be unable to fully process their loan application by July 27, exercised their contractual right to a 30-day extension, pushing the closing date to August 26, 1989.
- By July 31, 1989, the Kalinowskis had secured their loan commitment and were ready, willing, and able to perform their obligations under the Salt Lake DROA.
- Due to construction delays with the Yehs' Mililani home, the Yehs requested and obtained two 30-day extensions from the Kalinowskis, which extended the Salt Lake DROA closing date to October 30, 1989.
- When the Yehs' Mililani purchase had still not closed by October 30, 1989, the Yehs canceled the Salt Lake sale, invoking the "time is of the essence" clause, despite the Kalinowskis being willing to extend the closing date once again.
- Several days after canceling their agreement with the Kalinowskis, the Yehs agreed to sell the Salt Lake condominium unit to another buyer for $176,000, with an even later closing date.
Procedural Posture:
- The Kalinowskis filed a complaint in the trial court (court of first instance) seeking specific performance of the Salt Lake DROA.
- After a jury-waived trial, the trial court concluded that the Yehs had waived the "time is of the essence" clause and ordered them to specifically perform the DROA.
- The Yehs (defendants-appellants) filed a timely appeal to the Intermediate Court of Appeals of Hawaii.
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 party to a real estate contract, whose own inability to perform caused a delay in closing, have the right to unilaterally cancel the contract by invoking a 'time is of the essence' clause, thereby precluding the innocent party from obtaining specific performance?
Opinions:
Majority - Watanabe, J.
Yes, a party whose own inability to perform caused a delay cannot unilaterally cancel a real estate contract by invoking a "time is of the essence" clause, and specific performance is an appropriate remedy for the innocent party. The court recognized that in contracts for the sale of land, exact timing is generally not considered "of the essence" due to the minimal injury caused by delay and the common practice of overlooking such delays. A fundamental principle in contract law dictates that "no person should profit by his or her own wrong," meaning a party cannot use a condition precedent as a defense if they are responsible for its non-compliance. Here, the Kalinowskis were ready and able to perform since July 31, 1989, and the sole cause of delay was the delayed construction of the Yehs' Mililani home, a condition precedent to the Yehs' performance. The court also noted that the Yehs' subsequent agreement to sell the condominium to another buyer with a later closing date indicated that they did not genuinely consider timely closing essential. Citing precedents like Kimm v. Andrews and Alk v. Lanini, the court affirmed that specific performance can be enforced even with a "time is of the essence" clause if the non-performance is attributable to the party against whom specific performance is sought. Furthermore, specific performance is generally a matter of right for valid real estate contracts due to the unique nature of land, and this principle extends to specific condominium units, especially where market prices have appreciated, making monetary damages inadequate and leaving the blameless buyers without the benefit of their bargain.
Analysis:
This case significantly reinforces the equitable principle that a contracting party cannot use a strict contractual provision, such as a "time is of the essence" clause, to evade their obligations when their own conduct or inability to perform caused the contractual delay. It clarifies that such clauses are not absolute and are subject to the broader legal tenet against profiting from one's own wrong. The decision also broadens the application of specific performance for unique properties to include specific condominium units, particularly in a volatile market where monetary damages may not adequately compensate an injured party. This ruling provides crucial guidance for real estate transactions, discouraging opportunistic cancellations and ensuring fairness when one party is blameless and ready to perform.
