Bitcoin and the Real Estate Lawyer
Elizabeth Jaikaran looks at the counseling issues at play when cryptocurrency is used to fund real estate transactions, and discusses the first wholly Bitcoin-funded real estate transaction, which closed in September of this year.
December 19, 2017 at 02:17 PM
6 minute read
Though still conceptually mysterious to many U.S. consumers, Bitcoin (and other forms of cryptocurrency) is becoming increasingly prevalent in everyday transactions. Accordingly, cryptocurrency is projected to quickly become a mainstream form of payment—including in connection with real estate transactions. Bitcoin remains unregulated and unrecognized as an official U.S. currency. Nonetheless, Bitcoin is subject to taxable appreciation once converted to dollars, much like stocks. As a result, real estate lawyers should have a keen understanding of the issues of cryptocurrency functionality when structuring Bitcoin inclusive transactions.
Bitcoin Basics
The counseling issues that emerge at the intersection of Bitcoin and real estate take on the persona of pedagogy when representing skeptical (or more conservative and thus risk averse) sellers, the resolution of which is necessarily predicated upon understanding precisely what Bitcoin represents and how it works. Most simply, Bitcoin is a form of digital currency involving blockchain technology—a digitized and public ledger of all Bitcoin transactions stored in a cloud. Bitcoin can be purchased from bitcoin exchanges, and can be stored in a digital wallet. These wallets are virtual bank accounts containing public and private keys. The public key represents the equivalent of a bank account number and the private key represents the equivalent of an ATM pin. Notably, although the blockchain records all Bitcoin transactions, the transactions themselves remain anonymous with only the identification of the digital wallet being recorded. At Bitcoin ATMs, keys are printed and, just like cash, if that print-out is lost, so is the Bitcoin.
At the Closing Table
Unregulated and uninsured, Bitcoin remains highly susceptible to hacking and theft—a reality that keeps the digital currency firmly planted in its mysterious persona. However, as more and more purchasers seek to purchase property using cryptocurrency (and title companies are willing to accept the risks tied to the volatile nature of digital currency), real estate lawyers will, in equal frequency, be tasked with explaining the foregoing characteristics of digital currency to sellers, and describing what these transactions will look like at the closing table.
In taking these efforts as counsel, it is imperative to highlight to sellers of real property that (1) if sellers do not want to assume the risks that emerge when accepting Bitcoin as direct payment, they may turn down purchasers who wish to use their Bitcoin as cash, and (2) if title companies accept Bitcoin from purchasers, sellers walk away from the closing table with U.S. dollars, not Bitcoin print-outs, thus eliminating the risks of accepting direct Bitcoin payment. Title companies may accept Bitcoin from purchasers at closing, and then convert and furnish the converted cash to sellers in satisfaction of the purchase price. In doing so, sellers will not assume any of the risk fluctuating Bitcoin values; they will walk away from closings with U.S. dollars of fixed value. The same conversion should occur in connection with down-payments or deposits; as such amounts are contractually fixed and should not be in a state of daily fluctuation. While the process sounds complicated and laborious, the task of converting digital currency to U.S. dollars at the closing table has been characterized as both expedient and simple.
In September 2017, Kuper Sotheby's International Realty brokered what is being called a landmark residential sale in Austin, Texas—a sale completely financed in Bitcoin. While the use of cryptocurrency in such a transaction would be expected to present a multitude of complications, the brokerage expressed shock by just how simple the process turned out to be, citing that it took all of ten minutes for the Bitcoin to be changed to U.S. dollars and close the transaction. Thus, the use of Bitcoin may actually quicken the pace of real estate transactions, as wallets are instantly verifiable via public ledgers contained in blockchain technology, thereby representing a simplified method for remitting funds and closing deals.
Dealing With Devaluation
In transactions that are only partly funded with Bitcoin in conjunction with mortgage financing, however, both purchasers and sellers should be counseled on the need to exhibit available funds that absorb the risks of significant Bitcoin devaluations—that is, purchasers should have sufficient funds to account for devaluations in a purchaser's Bitcoin between contract signing and the date of closing, as lenders will not make up the difference between their commitments and any subsequent devaluations. For example, say Person A is interested in purchasing a parcel of real property from Person B, and, as of that date, possesses enough Bitcoin to finance half of the purchase price of that property. Between the time that Person A signs a contract of sale and attends closing, her Bitcoin may decrease in value such that only one-third of the purchase price is Bitcoin financeable by the closing date. If Person A's lender has only committed to lending an amount equal to one-half of the purchase price, Person A will either (1) need to secure another source of immediately available funds, or (2) back out of the deal altogether. To avoid the collapse of a sale, sellers can either request production of proof of sufficient funds from purchasers prior to contracting, or contractually provide that such deficiency during the contracting period shall constitute a termination right for seller.
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 AllIllusory Contract; Eviction Based on Illegal Use of Premises: This Week in Scott Mollen's Realty Law Digest
Trending Stories
- 1'I'm Staying Everything': Texas Bankruptcy Judge Halts Talc Trials Against J&J
- 2What We Know About the Kentucky Judge Killed in His Chambers
- 3Ex-Prosecutor and Judge Fatally Shot During Attempted Arrest on Federal Corruption Charges
- 4Judge Blasts Authors' Lawyers in Key AI Suit, Says Case Doomed Without Upgraded Team
- 5Federal Judge Won't Stop Title IX Investigation Into Former GMU Law Professor
Who Got The Work
Burr & Forman partner Garry K. Grooms has entered an appearance for 4M Acquisitions and Wallace D. Tweden in a pending environmental lawsuit. The action, filed July 22 in Tennessee Middle District Court by the McKellar Law Group and Mark E. Martin LLC on behalf of Tennessee Riverkeeper, contends that the defendant's violated the Clean Water Act and Tennessee Water Quality Control Act by allowing for the discharge of pollutants into waters of the U.S. without obtaining a National Pollutant Discharge permit. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Aleta A. Trauger, is 3:24-cv-00886, Tennessee Riverkeeper, Inc. v. Tweden et al.
Who Got The Work
Ramsey M. Al-Salam, Gene W. Lee and Stevan R. Stark of Perkins Coie have entered appearances for R-Pac International in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The case, filed Aug. 12 in New York Southern District Court by PinilisHalpern LLP and Friedman Suder & Cooke on behalf of Adasa Inc, asserts a single patent related to wireless sensors used for tagging products. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein, is 1:24-cv-06102, Adasa Inc. v. R-Pac International LLC.
Who Got The Work
Walmart has tapped lawyer Nicole M. Wright of Zausmer PC to defend a pending product liability lawsuit. The action was filed Aug. 12 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Wolfe Trial Lawyers on behalf of a plaintiff claiming burns from a defective propane tank. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Matthew F. Leitman, is 2:24-cv-12100, Hill v. Ferrellgas, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Kevin Simpson and James Randall of Winston & Strawn have stepped in to represent Comcast in a pending consumer class action. The case, filed Aug. 11 in Georgia Northern District Court by Kaufman PA, contends that the defendant placed pre-recorded debt collection phone calls to the plaintiff in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge J.P. Boulee, is 1:24-cv-03553, Pond v. Comcast Cable Communications LLC.
Who Got The Work
Potter Anderson & Corroon partners Christopher N. Kelly and Kevin R. Shannon have stepped in to represent cloud computing company Fastly and its top executives in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The complaint, filed Aug. 23 in Delaware District Court by deLeeuw Law and Bragar Eagel & Squire on behalf of Mark Sweitzer, accuses the defendant of failing to disclose that revenue growth in 2023 was primarily driven by a 'consolidation trend' in which companies simplified operations by reducing the number of content delivery network vendors under management, thereby reducing competition and increasing the defendant's market share. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Gregory B. Williams, is 1:24-cv-00969, Sweitzer v. Nightingale 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