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 AllBuilding a Championship Culture in Boutique Law Firms: Lessons From the Miami Heat
5 minute readWhy Strategic Marketing and Communications Is a Must for Law Firm Success
5 minute readThe Role of Artificial Intelligence in Hiring: Legal Considerations and Best Practices
8 minute readTurning Down the Rancor Around DEI: Re-embracing the Value of—and Values Behind—Workplace Diversity Programs
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1The Law Firm Disrupted: Playing the Talent Game to Win
- 2Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
- 3BD Settles Thousands of Bard Hernia Mesh Lawsuits
- 4GlaxoSmithKline Settles Most Zantac Lawsuits for $2.2B
- 5A&O Shearman Adopts 3-Level Lockstep Pay Model Amid Shift to All-Equity Partnership
Who Got The Work
Blank Rome partner Andrew T. Hambelton has stepped in to defend Fragrancenet.com in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The case, filed Aug. 29 in New York Southern District Court by the Blakely Law Group, targets the defendants for allegedly selling counterfeit fragrance products. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Lorna G. Schofield, is 1:24-cv-06521, Abercrombie & Fitch Trading Co. v. Quester (US) Enterprises, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Davis Polk & Wardwell partners Mari Grace and Edmund Polubinski III have entered appearances for Australia-based Bitcoin-mining company Iris Energy and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Eastern District Court by the Rosen Law Firm, contends that the defendants concealed the inadequacy of the company's site in Childress County, Texas, including it being 'ill-equipped' and unable to operate the company's proprietary design. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Peggy Kuo, is 1:24-cv-07046, Williams-Israel v. Iris Energy Limited et al.
Who Got The Work
Ryan S. Stippich of Reinhart Boerner Van Deuren has entered an appearance for biopharmaceutical company Veru Inc. and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Sept. 30 in Wisconsin Western District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of June Ovadias, accuses the defendant of failing to disclose that small sample sizes and other issues rendered it unlikely that the FDA would grant Emergency Use Authorization for the cancer drug candidate sabizabulin as a potential treatment for COVID-19. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge William M. Conley, is 3:24-cv-00676, Ovadias, June v. Steiner, Mitchell et al.
Who Got The Work
Holland & Knight partners Cynthia A. Gierhart and Thomas Willcox Brooke have entered appearances for Pakistani American Political Action Committee and Rao Kamran Ali in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The action, filed Sept. 24 in District of Columbia District Court by Jackson Walker on behalf of Pakistani American Public Affairs Committee, accuses the defendants of using a mark that's confusingly similar to the plaintiff's 'Pak-Pac' marks without authorization. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Randolph D. Moss, is 1:24-cv-02727, Pakistani American Public Affairs Committee v. Pakistani American Political Action Committee et al.
Who Got The Work
Lauren M. Rosenberg and Yonatan Even of Cravath, Swaine & Moore have stepped in to represent Israel-based Oddity Tech Ltd. in a pending securities class action. The case, filed Aug. 30 in New York Southern District Court by Pomerantz LLP and Holzer & Holzer, contends that the defendant made materially misleading statements regarding the capability of Oddity's AI technology and ongoing civil litigation, resulting in the artifical inflation of the market price of Oddity's securities. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Margaret M. Garnett, is 1:24-cv-06571, Hoare v. Oddity Tech Ltd. et al.
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