Luttinger v. Rosen
316 A.2d 757, 1972 Conn. LEXIS 644, 164 Conn. 45 (1972)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a real estate contract is conditional upon the buyer obtaining financing with specific terms from a third-party lending institution, that condition precedent must be met exactly. An offer by the seller to subsidize a non-conforming loan does not satisfy the condition, and the buyer is entitled to terminate the contract and recover their deposit.
Facts:
- The plaintiffs entered into a contract to purchase a home from the defendants for $85,000 and paid an $8,500 deposit.
- The contract was conditional upon the plaintiffs obtaining a $45,000 mortgage from a lending institution for a term of at least 20 years with an interest rate not to exceed 8.5% per annum.
- The agreement required the plaintiffs to use due diligence in seeking this financing.
- The plaintiffs, through their attorney, applied to the only lending institution known to be willing to lend the required amount on such a property.
- The institution offered a mortgage commitment for $45,000, but the interest rate was set at the prevailing rate at closing, which would be no less than 8.75%.
- Because the offered mortgage did not meet the contract's 8.5% cap, the plaintiffs notified the defendants that the condition was not met and requested the return of their deposit.
- The defendants' counsel then offered an undefined 'funding arrangement' to cover the difference between the 8.75% rate offered and the 8.5% rate specified in the contract.
- The plaintiffs rejected this offer and the defendants refused to return the deposit.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiffs (buyers) brought an action against the defendants (sellers) in a trial court to recover their $8,500 deposit.
- The trial court rendered a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs.
- The defendants appealed the trial court's judgment to this court.
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 seller's offer to subsidize the interest rate on a mortgage satisfy a contract's financing contingency clause that requires the buyer to obtain a loan with a specific interest rate from a bank or other lending institution?
Opinions:
Majority - Loiselle, J.
No. A seller's offer to subsidize a non-conforming mortgage does not satisfy a specific financing contingency clause that requires the buyer to obtain financing from a third-party lender. The court reasoned that the financing contingency was a condition precedent, meaning it is an event that must occur before a party has a right to performance. Because the language of the contract was unambiguous in requiring the plaintiffs to obtain a mortgage with specific terms 'from a bank or other lending institution,' the failure to secure such a loan meant the condition was not fulfilled and the contract was unenforceable. The plaintiffs were entitled to reject the defendants' separate offer to fund the interest rate difference, as this was not the performance contemplated by the contract. The court also found that the plaintiffs exercised due diligence by applying to the only lender that might have satisfied the terms, as the law does not require the performance of a futile act.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the legal principle of strict compliance with conditions precedent in contracts, particularly in the context of real estate transactions. The decision clarifies that a financing contingency is a protection for the buyer that must be satisfied precisely according to its terms, not through alternative arrangements proposed by the seller after the fact. This precedent provides certainty for buyers, ensuring they are not obligated to accept creative financing solutions not contemplated in the original agreement. It also underscores the importance for drafters to be explicit and precise when creating contingency clauses.
Unlock the full brief for Luttinger v. Rosen