Is the contract still valid?

[AnotherFellow]

Florida

Hi,
I need an expert advice! I'm the seller. The buyer claimed that the title is unmarketable because of the house's code violation. My first question is whether a code violation makes the title unmarketable? (I haven't gotten any notice form the city).

The contract stipulates that the seller has 30 days to resolve the issue. After that, the buyser must provide within 5 days a written notice stating either
1) the buyer cancels the contract
or
2) the buyer gives additional time, up to 120 days, to correct the defect.

If the buyer fails to deliver such notice, then he is assumed to agree to buy the house as is.

Now, the buyer sent a notice a week before the 30-day extension ended saying that he's still interested. The notice didn't specify any time frame. After the 30-day term expired, the buyer didn't deliver any further notice. It's already almost two months past the 30-day deadline. The buyer expressed his interest orally in buying the property whenever the defect is cleared, but not in writing.

My second question is: is the contract still valid? Must the buyer buy the property as is now?

Thanks a lot for your help!

[BradleyS]

RE Broker in Kansas:

Does the title work state any "requirements" on the property getting it to Code?

[AnotherFellow]

Nope. It just says that defects be remedied. It doesn't even specify what these defects are.

[HomeGuru]

Originally Posted by AnotherFellow

Florida

Hi,
I need an expert advice! I'm the seller. The buyer claimed that the title is unmarketable because of the house's code violation. My first question is whether a code violation makes the title unmarketable? (I haven't gotten any notice form the city).

**A: a code violation has nothing to do with the property tile. A title report should determine clear title or not.
*********
The contract stipulates that the seller has 30 days to resolve the issue. After that, the buyser must provide within 5 days a written notice stating either
1) the buyer cancels the contract
or
2) the buyer gives additional time, up to 120 days, to correct the defect.

If the buyer fails to deliver such notice, then he is assumed to agree to buy the house as is.

**A: is not this clause from the title section fo the contract? If so, it is moot.
********
Now, the buyer sent a notice a week before the 30-day extension ended saying that he's still interested. The notice didn't specify any time frame. After the 30-day term expired, the buyer didn't deliver any further notice. It's already almost two months past the 30-day deadline. The buyer expressed his interest orally in buying the property whenever the defect is cleared, but not in writing.

My second question is: is the contract still valid? Must the buyer buy the property as is now?

**A: yes, if you are presenting the contract clause correctly.
********

Thanks a lot for your help!

**A: ok****************************.

[BradleyS]

Give us an example of what the buyer is calling a "Code Violation?"

[HomeGuru]

Where's the example?

[AnotherFellow]

Thanks a lot for your help to all of you!

The house had an attached patio that was converted to a part of the house by previous owners apparently without obtaining a permit from the city. The buyer was aware of this improvement as I was when I was buying it.

The buyer did the survey of the property. There's also a clause in the contract that says "if the survey discloses ... that improvements vioalate any restrictions, ... , government regulations, then the same shall constitute a title defect."

The buyer didn't send us the copy of the survey. Nor he referred to the survey when claiming that the title is unmarketable. The title comitment does make the conformance to all codes, regulations, etc, a requirement to comply with.

[HomeGuru]

Originally Posted by AnotherFellow

Thanks a lot for your help to all of you!

The house had an attached patio that was converted to a part of the house by previous owners apparently without obtaining a permit from the city. The buyer was aware of this improvement as I was when I was buying it.

The buyer did the survey of the property. There's also a clause in the contract that says "if the survey discloses ... that improvements vioalate any restrictions, ... , government regulations, then the same shall constitute a title defect."

The buyer didn't send us the copy of the survey. Nor he referred to the survey when claiming that the title is unmarketable. The title comitment does make the conformance to all codes, regulations, etc, a requirement to comply with.

**A: based on the language in the contract, there would be a title defect. Based on reality, the condition would not constitute a title defect.

[passingby]

Actually, the buyer doesn't even have to wait 30 days to get out of this contract if the patio is in violation of building code and there is no way to fix it and maintain the original state of the patio. Reasoning....the patio was part of the reason the buyer wanted the property...if the patio is in violation of code, the house can't be sold (to anyone whose loan requires titling insurance) until the problem is corrected, such as torn up/rebuilt to code which might make the patio smaller perhaps, but that would mean the same patio the buyer 'purchased' was no longer there ( a different one is a moot point) and so the buyer does not have to purchase a property that is 'different' than the one they originally agreed to purchase.

That said, this is a minor problem that you should be able to work out with the buyer. Present the buyer with the plans for the corrected patio or ommission of patio and get them to agree to purchase with the altered state of the property. If they're nice, they'll just say, ok and sign...if they want to split hairs or if it really does make a big difference you might offer a discount on the sale to remedy the problem. But you will have to correct the code violation in order to sell to anyone who does not have full out cash and thereby is not beholding to government regulations.

[HomeGuru]

Originally Posted by passingby

Actually, the buyer doesn't even have to wait 30 days to get out of this contract if the patio is in violation of building code and there is no way to fix it and maintain the original state of the patio. Reasoning....the patio was part of the reason the buyer wanted the property...if the patio is in violation of code, the house can't be sold (to anyone whose loan requires titling insurance) until the problem is corrected, such as torn up/rebuilt to code which might make the patio smaller perhaps, but that would mean the same patio the buyer 'purchased' was no longer there ( a different one is a moot point) and so the buyer does not have to purchase a property that is 'different' than the one they originally agreed to purchase.

That said, this is a minor problem that you should be able to work out with the buyer. Present the buyer with the plans for the corrected patio or ommission of patio and get them to agree to purchase with the altered state of the property. If they're nice, they'll just say, ok and sign...if they want to split hairs or if it really does make a big difference you might offer a discount on the sale to remedy the problem. But you will have to correct the code violation in order to sell to anyone who does not have full out cash and thereby is not beholding to government regulations.

**A: your logic makes sense but your statements are not correct.

[AnotherFellow]

Originally Posted by HomeGuru

**A: based on the language in the contract, there would be a title defect. Based on reality, the condition would not constitute a title defect.

Thanks, HomeGuru!

OK, assuming there is a title defect, what about my second question? If the buyer didn't notify me in writing after the 30-day expiration, can I force the closing now?

[HomeGuru]

Originally Posted by AnotherFellow

Thanks, HomeGuru!

OK, assuming there is a title defect, what about my second question? If the buyer didn't notify me in writing after the 30-day expiration, can I force the closing now?

**A: no as it appears that the Buyer is giving you the 120 days to correct the defect since there was not termination in writing.