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
© 2025 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 AllTurning the Shock of a January Marital Split Into Effective Strategies for Your Well-Being
5 minute readTrending Issues in Florida Construction Law That Attorneys Need to Be Aware Of
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Uber Files RICO Suit Against Plaintiff-Side Firms Alleging Fraudulent Injury Claims
- 2The Law Firm Disrupted: Scrutinizing the Elephant More Than the Mouse
- 3Inherent Diminished Value Damages Unavailable to 3rd-Party Claimants, Court Says
- 4Pa. Defense Firm Sued by Client Over Ex-Eagles Player's $43.5M Med Mal Win
- 5Losses Mount at Morris Manning, but Departing Ex-Chair Stays Bullish About His Old Firm's Future
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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