Fla. Association of Realtors Releases Extension Addendum to Deal With Coronavirus-Related Delays
Some delays may include travel restrictions, self-imposed and governmental-required isolations, potential closures of offices and institutions required to fund, close, and record real estate transactions, and action or inactions of a homeowners' or condominium associations.
May 13, 2020 at 10:54 AM
4 minute read
The pandemic may cause unprecedented impacts to real estate transactions that will likely delay performance by one or both parties. The parties may be forced to work out extensions of deadlines in order to address such delays. Some delays may include travel restrictions, self-imposed and governmental-required isolations, potential closures of offices and institutions required to fund, close, and record real estate transactions, and action or inactions of a homeowners' or condominium associations.
The Florida Association of Realtors has released a coronavirus (COVID-19) extension addendum to contract (the addendum) created to specifically deal with coronavirus-related delays. The addendum can be used with all existing form Florida Association of Realtors contracts, including the FAR/BAR "AS-IS" residential contract, contract for residential sale and purchase (CRSP), vacant land contract and commercial contract. The addendum provides for extensions of time periods for the closing date, financing period, inspection period, title cure period, feasibility study period, due diligence period and homeowners'/condominium association approval.
Buyers and sellers can agree to extend any or all of the above-mentioned time periods for as much time as they think is necessary to complete each item given the current circumstances surrounding the pandemic. The parties can either enter a fixed date deadline or a number of days by which to extend the deadline. Please note that if the parties choose to extend a deadline by a certain number of days, this could mean business days or calendar days depending on the contract language, so the parties must look to the underlying contract as those terms would control the interpretation of the addendum.
The last paragraph of the addendum also provides the buyer protections in the event the buyer's lender doesn't fund an already-approved loan; specifically, it allows the buyer to terminate the contract and receive a refund of the deposit if the lender does not fund the loan due to concerns regarding the pandemic, or if the buyer's loan approval/commitment expires prior to closing due to such delays. The theory behind this provision is that buyers should not be penalized if they have already been approved and are proceeding in good faith, but something changes beyond their control due to the pandemic. Some examples of this are that the lender decides not to fund for business purposes related to the pandemic, or the buyer loses their job so they no longer have the regular monthly income under which they were previously approved. From the buyer's side, it would not be fair for the buyer to lose their deposit as a result of such scenarios. On the other side of the coin, a seller may feel that this paragraph leans too much in favor of the buyer, and may want to protect their interest by agreeing to an extension of any of these deadlines only in exchange for the buyer waiving the financing contingency, agreeing to release some or all of the deposit to seller, or some other agreement. Depending on the specific circumstances, the parties may still use the standard form extension addendum if the delay is not related to complications caused by the pandemic. It is important that the buyer and seller work together to determine which addendum and terms work best for their particular situation.
At the end of the day, as long as the parties want to close the transaction, they should be able to find a way to complete the transaction despite the complications caused by the pandemic, and the addendum allows them a simple way to do just that. For new contracts, the parties can and should include any additional time they believe will be required to deal with delays caused by the pandemic by making any deadlines longer than they would under normal circumstances.
Avi S. Tryson is the Coral Gables managing partner of Goede, Adamczyk, DeBoest & Cross. He focuses his practice on community association and real estate law.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllAs a New Year Dawns, the Value of Florida’s Revised Mediation Laws Comes Into Greater Focus
4 minute readData Breaches, Increased Regulatory Risk and Florida’s New Digital Bill of Rights
7 minute readNavigating Florida's Products Liability Law: Defective Products, Warnings and the Pursuit of Justice
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1The Key Moves in the Reshuffling German Legal Market as 2025 Dawns
- 2Social Media Celebrities Clash in $100M Lawsuit
- 3Federal Judge Sets 2026 Admiralty Bench Trial in Baltimore Bridge Collapse Litigation
- 4Trump Media Accuses Purchaser Rep of Extortion, Harassment After Merger
- 5Judge Slashes $2M in Punitive Damages in Sober-Living Harassment Case
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250