Preferred Mortgage Brokers, Inc. v. Byfield
2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3783, 723 N.Y.S.2d 230, 282 A.D.2d 589 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a contract contains an express condition precedent, that condition must be literally performed before a party's duty to perform under the contract arises.
Facts:
- On November 3, 1997, the defendants hired the plaintiff, a mortgage broker, to assist them in securing financing to purchase a house.
- The contract between the parties required the defendants to pay the plaintiff's fee 'directly upon [the] signed acceptance of a commitment.'
- The plaintiff successfully obtained a mortgage loan commitment on the defendants' behalf.
- The defendants never signed any document to accept the loan commitment.
- The defendants did not close on the proposed loan and subsequently refused to pay the plaintiff's brokerage fee.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff mortgage broker filed an action in the Supreme Court, Westchester County (a trial-level court) against the defendants for breach of contract.
- The plaintiff moved for summary judgment.
- The trial court granted the plaintiff's motion and entered a judgment in the plaintiff's favor in the principal sum of $5,972.50.
- The defendants, as appellants, appealed the trial court's order and judgment to the Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division.
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 contractual obligation to pay a mortgage broker's fee, which is explicitly contingent upon the client's 'signed acceptance of a commitment,' become due if the client obtains a commitment but never provides a signed acceptance?
Opinions:
Majority - Krausman, J. P., Friedmann, Feuerstein and Smith, JJ., concur.
No. The contractual obligation to pay the broker's fee does not become due because a 'signed acceptance of a commitment' was an express condition precedent that was never satisfied. A condition precedent is an act or event that must occur before a duty to perform a promise arises. The court reasoned that express conditions, which are created by the parties themselves, must be 'literally performed.' Since the contract's plain language required a 'signed acceptance' and the record shows the defendants never signed to accept the loan commitment, the express condition precedent was not met. Therefore, the defendants' duty to pay the broker's fee never arose, and they are not in breach of the contract.
Analysis:
This case underscores the judicial principle of strictly construing express conditions precedent in contract law. It demonstrates that courts will enforce the literal terms agreed upon by the parties and will not imply a duty to perform when a clear, designated trigger for that duty has not occurred. The ruling serves as a crucial reminder for drafters of service contracts, particularly brokers, to formulate payment clauses carefully; payment can be conditioned on the broker's performance (e.g., 'upon securing a commitment') rather than on a client's discretionary action (e.g., 'upon acceptance'). Furthermore, the court's action of searching the record to grant summary judgment to the non-moving defendants highlights an appellate court's authority under CPLR 3212(b) to resolve cases efficiently where the law and facts are clear.
