You are here: / / PLAINTIFF, WHO LOST HIS JOB AFTER HIS MORTGAGE HAD BEEN APPROVED AND THE...

PLAINTIFF, WHO LOST HIS JOB AFTER HIS MORTGAGE HAD BEEN APPROVED AND THE MORTGAGE CONTINGENCY IN THE PURCHASE CONTRACT WAS SATISFIED, WAS ENTITLED TO THE RETURN OF THE DEPOSIT, THE REVOCATION OF THE MORTGAGE COMMITMENT WAS NOT DUE TO BAD FAITH ON PLAINTIFF’S PART (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff was entitled to return of his deposit in this real estate transaction. The contract allowed the return of the deposit if plaintiff did not qualify for a mortgage within a specified period of time. Plaintiff did qualify within the allowed time. However, he subsequently lost his job and could not obtain the mortgage. Plaintiff asked for the deposit but defendant refused:

” A mortgage contingency clause is construed to create a condition precedent to the contract of sale'” … . “The purchaser is entitled to return of the down payment where the mortgage contingency clause unequivocally provides for its return upon the purchaser’s inability to obtain a mortgage commitment within the contingency period”… . “However, when the lender revokes the mortgage commitment after the contingency period has elapsed, the contractual provision relating to failure to obtain an initial commitment is inoperable, and the question becomes whether the lender’s revocation was attributable to any bad faith on the part of the purchaser”… .

Here, the plaintiff established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law for the return of his down payment. He submitted evidence that he acted in good faith in obtaining a mortgage commitment, that the commitment was subject to re-verification of employment, and that the subsequent revocation of the commitment was not attributable to any bad faith on his part … . Chahalis v Roberta Ebert Irrevocable Trust, 2018 NY Slip Op 05135, Second Dept 7-11-18

REAL ESTATE (PLAINTIFF, WHO LOST HIS JOB AFTER HIS MORTGAGE HAD BEEN APPROVED AND THE MORTGAGE CONTINGENCY IN THE PURCHASE CONTRACT WAS SATISFIED, WAS ENTITLED TO THE RETURN OF THE DEPOSIT, THE REVOCATION OF THE MORTGAGE COMMITMENT WAS NOT DUE TO BAD FAITH ON PLAINTIFF’S PART (SECOND DEPT))/DEPOSIT (REAL ESTATE, PLAINTIFF, WHO LOST HIS JOB AFTER HIS MORTGAGE HAD BEEN APPROVED AND THE MORTGAGE CONTINGENCY IN THE PURCHASE CONTRACT WAS SATISFIED, WAS ENTITLED TO THE RETURN OF THE DEPOSIT, THE REVOCATION OF THE MORTGAGE COMMITMENT WAS NOT DUE TO BAD FAITH ON PLAINTIFF’S PART (SECOND DEPT))/MORTGAGE COMMITMENT (REAL ESTATE, PLAINTIFF, WHO LOST HIS JOB AFTER HIS MORTGAGE HAD BEEN APPROVED AND THE MORTGAGE CONTINGENCY IN THE PURCHASE CONTRACT WAS SATISFIED, WAS ENTITLED TO THE RETURN OF THE DEPOSIT, THE REVOCATION OF THE MORTGAGE COMMITMENT WAS NOT DUE TO BAD FAITH ON PLAINTIFF’S PART (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
Trial Court Has the Discretion to Determine the Best Venue for Consolidated Actions—Here a County Other than the County Where the First Action Was Brought Was Properly Determined to Be the Most Appropriate Venue
TENANT ABUTTING SIDEWALK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT IT DID NOT CLEAR ICE AND SNOW FROM THE SIDEWALK AND THAT IT DID NOT EXACERBATE THE DANGEROUS CONDITION, MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS NOT BARRED FROM SEEKING RENT OVERCHARGES BASED UPON A 1986 RENT REDUCTION ORDER (SECOND DEPT).
Shareholder Should Not Have Been Awarded Damages Individually Re: a Derivative Cause of Action
SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, REVOKED THE ACCELERATION OF THE DEBT IN THIS FORECLOSURE CASE BECAUSE PLAINTIFF DID NOT SEEK THAT RELIEF (SECOND DEPT).
Where the Complaint Alleged Only that the Driveway Was Defective and the Complaint Against the Company Which Renovated the Driveway Was Dismissed, the Complaint Against the Property Owners Should Have Been Dismissed As Well–There Was No Viable Theory for Liability on the Part of the Property Owners
THE JUDGE WAS REQUIRED TO DETERMINE WHETHER DEFENDANT IS AN “ELIGIBLE YOUTH,” AND, IF SO WHETHER DEFENDANT SHOULD BE ADJUDICATED A YOUTHFUL OFFENDER; THE JUDGE WAS NOT AUTHORIZED TO ACCEPT A GUILTY PLEA TO SECOND DEGREE MURDER FROM THE JUVENILE DEFENDANT; THE WAIVER OF APPEAL WAS INVALID (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH DISCOVERY ORDERS WAS WILLFUL AND CONTUMACIOUS BUT DID NOT WARRANT SUPREME COURT’S STRIKING THE COMPLAINT; THE APPELLATE DIVISION IMPOSED EVIDENTIARY SANCTIONS AND ORDERED PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL TO PAY DEFENDANT $3000 (SECOND DEPT). ​

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

Copyright © 2023 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

$1.5 MILLION VERDICT AFFIRMED, PLAINTIFF, A 72-YEAR-OLD WOMAN, WAS INJURED WHEN... PROPERTY DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO JOIN THE SLIP AND FALL ACTION WITH A MEDICAL...