[valerie61]

Help, I need to find cases and Statues on Real Estate/Contract Law.concerning Earnest Money

I looked at the Law Library but didn't find much that would pertain to my need, the librarian explaining is due to not having had any previous cases like it.

I was selling my property to a buyer for $75k , he had a friend come and look at it and ask for the survey, I gave him which showed the other lots around mine with another vacant one behind mine but was not for sale, and he told him in my presence he should buy that one instead, and ever since then he quit taking interest in doing his part to close and backed out of it altogether. Then provided me with a document designed by his friend that said, he gave the land an inspection which failed due to not being big enough to build 3 houses on it. At the hearing in court the Judge said this document was "Hearsay" because the friend didn't show up to court to say it himself. THe judge said he was not sure how to rule, he would research it and come up with whatever would be according to the law. But a month later when I got the judgment, the Judge ruled solely on the document he deemed "Hearsay". I have appealed. Since this was all small claims, neither of us had a lawyer, and I am still going ProSe. But I need help here with the buyer dealing fraudulently with me to get his money back he told me before we signed that I had nothing to lose by agreeing to sign the contract, that he would lose not me. They used the clause: contingent upon inspection to use the inspection failed. Then to mean that I failed to perform so he could get his money back. I thought no way I would lose, but I still should not in appeals if I have case law and statues that up hold the seller was not at fault, the judge erred in using "hearsay to make a final decision in the buyers favor".

We signed the contract ourselves without a lawyer, but we had a person look it over whom he told me was his lawyer. Since I would not sign unless we had a lawyer present and look at its content. She said everything looked good, but in fact it was not detailed enough with specifics. It was an updated contract, with only default solutions written in small print.

[Emland]

Did the buyer make you an offer in writing and give earnest money?

Sorry, but I am having a terrible time trying to understand you.

[valerie61]

As I said, we had a contract which we signed, that which was in writing in the contract.
He gave me the earnest money to deposit in my checking account and I did.
Here's what my argument says:

Legal Argument 1


My argument is that Judge Walter M. Green erroneously entered and

Accepted an unauthenticated inspection report, which was used as a

Pretext to cancel the contract under an "inspection clause" contingency.

This is what Judge Green during the hearing on 2/21/06 deemed as

“Heresy” into evidence.

As we were present for the court hearing before Judge Green, the plaintiff

Presented this document/unauthenticated inspection report to use to try to

Prove his reason to fail to close and back out of and not intend to live up to

Their obligations under the Contract for Sale And Purchase (FLORIDA

ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS AND THE FLORIDA BAR) .

Which is Parcel: 03861-010-006 sold by owner Valerie Almeida Town

This document being designed and signed by his close friend whom was

NOT present at the hearing with us and therefore Judge Green received no

Testimony from the person from whom the document originated, and

Judge Green declared to Romero Govinda & I that the document

Which is Appendix Part 1 No. 4 LETTER DATED 10/01/05 TO: GOVINDA

ROMERO, FROM: JTM RESEARCH ASSOC. RE: PROPERTY INSPECTION was

Considered Heresy and should not be used to base the ruling on it.

Judge Green declared to us that he would have to research and ask

Around to find out how to rule because he admitted he didn't know,

But that we could rest assured that his decision would be based

On the law and what is right and just. This document/unauthenticated

Inspection report being designed and signed by his friend Jeff Moy whom

Was NOT present at the hearing with us, in this letter he devised false

Statements about a situation he concocted how that the property in his

Opinion is not big enough, and thus advised my buyer to back out of it.

This friend Jeff Moy was not present when my buyer Govinda Romero

Talked to me about buying it nor when the contract was signed, and never

Did Govinda Romero say he wanted to build 3 homes on a lot this size,

Until after his friend talked to him. (Refer to all the Statement of case/facts

Part 1 No. 1 four pages, about this and the rest I speak of here below, there it's written in more detail.)

I told the buyer since the beginning the lot is only buildable for 1 home

According to the city building department and he was very happy about it.

But buyer was never happy about it any more after Jeff Moy talked to him

Which was after he had already signed the contract.

Also Judge Greens ruling to research and decide on a ruling for judgment
In accordance with the law was not done in a timely manner, but may have
Been inappropriate for the length of time to execute judgment. I think he
Must have forgotten our case, and I saw he barely took much notes himself

During the hearing with which to refer to the case.
When we were together for the signing of the contract and got to the

Contingency part, he put contingent upon inspection. I asked him what he

Means by that? *He replied to me that he just meant in case something

Toxic would be found on the property, then if there was he could back out.


Who in the world hires an inspector solely to check size of a lot after you

Sign the contract? We had already did that both of us, who buys a lot

Without knowing its size? I would not sell it without telling the size and

Dimensions. He asked for the survey and took a picture with his cell phone

The very first time he came by, before we signed a contract. Plus we

Contacted the city for what number of houses its buildable for and I talked to

The Old and new Planner for the city and Zoning before signing the contract.


It is so absurd that Judge Green sided with this made up concoction of a story that the buyer and his friend came up with then declared more concoctions to the story, like how *he said later on he is a Developer but failed to tell me that in the beginning.

This buyer had already bought property before, this was not his first time buying according to what he told me, plus he handled the contract himself with confidence of experience.

Orally we had the meeting of the minds totally since the beginning. He was always courteous and wanting me to give him first dibbs on it. I was asking a lot for this size from the start $100k, because a friend of mine told me start high because then you can always go lower, but if you start low you can't go higher. Romero asked me to come in to his office at work to see if we could agree on a price. We ered and agreed on $75k.

[valerie61]

Or read this argument:
Argument
1. My argument is that Judge Walter M. Green erroneously entered and
Accepted an unauthenticated inspection report by Jeff Moy, which was used as a pretext to cancel the contract under an "inspection clause" contingency.

This is the document that Judge Green himself judged and regarded as “Hearsay” during the hearing on 2/21/06.

During this court hearing appearing before Judge Green, the plaintiff Romero presented this document an unauthenticated inspection report typed up by his friend Jeff Moy to use to try to prove his reason to fail to close and back out of and not intend to live up to his obligations under the Contract for Sale And Purchase (FLORIDA ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS AND THE FLORIDA BAR) . This property being: Parcel: 03861-010-006 by owner Valerie Town Almeida.

This unauthenticated inspection report was designed and signed by his close friend Jeff Moy whom was NOT present at the hearing with us, and therefore Judge Green received no testimony from the person from whom this document originated, and though Jeff Moy in his letter devised false statements about a situation he concocted how that the property in his opinion is not big enough, and thus advises my buyer to back out of it.

Jeff Moy acts as a fiduciary for Romero one often in a position of authority who obligates himself to act on behalf of another (as in managing money or property) and assumes a duty to act in good faith and with care, candor, and loyalty in fulfilling the obligation : one (as an agent), which I think is a conflict of interest, right?

I explained how Moy came by days after Romero signed the contract to have a look at my property. He introduced himself, gave me his card and after me asking if he was a friend, Moy said he was a “Go Between” for Romero. But Romero said to me, we've been friends for years and I trust him with my life. Then Mr. Moy asked me for a survey of the lot, and I went in and got what I had, which was old. The survey showed my lot and all other lots around my property as well. Mr. Moy pointed to this other lot on survey I had given him and said out loud to Govinda Romero, “You should buy this lot instead of this one”. Which lot was vacant, yet had no “For Sale” sign on it.

Govinda told me in front of Mr. Moy that from now on I need to go to Mr. Moy to conduct any business having to do with selling him my property, He/Romero stated from now on he/Moy will handle everything for me.
Mr. Moy asked me to go and make a copy of this survey, but I said it is too big to copy. And as soon as they left I called Romero's cell phone and said, I don't feel comfortable dealing with this man at all, I said I would not as he is not the one buying my property. Romero tried in vain to convince me but then said, OK.

Judge Green on the other hand declared to Romero Govinda & I that this document which is: LETTER DATED 10/01/05 TO: GOVINDA ROMERO, FROM: JTM RESEARCH ASSOC. RE: PROPERTY INSPECTION, was considered “Hearsay” and thus should not be used to base the ruling on it.

2. Romero is negligent for not getting a real trained professional certified inspector as he agreed to do, to look for things like TOXICS & POISONS.
Since that was what he deemed the contingencies on inspection were when we discussed the matter before signing which is when I/Valerie Almeida inquired about what were contingencies on inspection,

And also he assured me that he believed everything would come out fine. He also told me that he would close in only 30 days; he gave me only 15 days to do the Title work, and he said he would do an inspection very soon, hopefully in a week. Only I noticed he wasn't getting an inspection done, and there's not much days left. His behavior had changed as I said before, after his friend came by, and neither of them told me Moy was there to conduct an inspection. So as time went on, I kept asking Romero if and when is he going to do an inspection and when he would perform his side of the agreement? He'd reply usually “Yeah I'm going to do that soon”.

One time I saved my notes I used when I called him saying “So your job is to DO your homework and do the inspection, that's what Buyers do, and you told me you know the procedure to get a Professional Inspection. I said, “You seem very smart, I have been very impressed with how you know what you are doing.” And if you find toxic waste as you told me, we will have to agree and record who pays to clean it up.” I also told him I have already started the Title work, I sent them the contract and our agreement how to divide closing costs with your oral approval, to which Romero said, “That's good”.

So see how his intentions changed, the reason Romero didn't want to pay for an inspection was because he had already decided to back out. He had only to figure out how to back out and get his money back, of which his friend helped him with, playing all along.
They knew it would be impossible to get out of the Breach of Contract for failure to perform, so they decided on the not well written contingency clause. But no where in the contract reads that the buyer can terminate the Contract Agreement and recover from Seller any portion of the Deposit paid by Buyer. But real estate contracts usually contain a provision limiting remedies
In the event of breach, which provided in relevant part:
If Buyer fails, without legal excuse, to close this transaction as and when required by this Agreement, Seller may terminate this Agreement and all of the rights granted to Buyer herein and retain the Deposit and any
Interest earned thereon as its sole and exclusive remedy any default
By Seller under this Agreement.. . Shall enable Buyer, as its sole and
Exclusive remedy, to terminate this Agreement and recover from Seller
The portion of the Deposit paid by Buyer.. .

I, Valerie defendant did nothing to default any agreements made on the contract.

Just before the contingency for inspection on the contract shows Romero selected “AS IS”.
I told my buyer since the beginning… the lot is only buildable for 1 home
According to the city building department and he was very happy about it.
But buyer was not happy about it any more after Jeff Moy talked to him
Which was after he had already signed the contract. As a seller I could most likely file a counterclaim for further damages, besides keeping the deposit based on the Buyers breach of contract. But the buyers request for earnest money is unconscionable and unenforceable.

3. I sought for help. I sensed something wrong due to Romero denying original facts and contradicting things he said before, claiming new things. So I contacted a Realtor, and a lawyer, and told them what was happening, and what I thought Romero might be doing, like maybe backing out, and I asked them what they each thought what was going on with Romero, and if he does back out what happens….etc. I kept my hand written notes of these conversations.

Mark Frazier was the lawyer, (he handles contracts) after talking with him, he thought Romero would be in Breach of Contract for failure to perform, if he backs out. So I asked if I could force him to perform, he said, “No” and he said, it sounds like he may try to take me to court, Frazier told me, and he offered to represent me.

The Realtor was from further south of Gainesville, Steve Grimes. He was kind enough to allow me to fax him the contract and discuss things. He told me that Florida is a BUYER BEWARE state. He advised me to tell Romero “I've talked with you before, I expect you (something about performing due diligence) to perform your inspection and I don't see why I need to keep talking to you or anyone else any more on these matters, I only need to see you at closing, as I expect to close!” Steve Grimes advised me to HOLD ON to the deposit money and not allow Romero to intimidate me. Steve felt very strongly that with Romero was preparing to set me up to sue me in court after what I described about Romero.

4. What kind of real certified or qualified inspector advises a buyer to back out of a contract due to size issues when nothing is physically failing inspection? It didn't take an inspector to determine such a simple issue. It was already determined via the proper city authorities, by me and Romero before signing. When we were together for the signing of the contract and got to the contingency part, he put contingent upon inspection. I asked him what he means by that? *He replied to me that it just meant in case something toxic would be found on the property, and then if there was he could back out.

Who in the world hires an inspector solely to check size of a lot after you
Sign the contract? We had already did that both of us, who buys a lot
Without knowing its size? I would not sell it without telling the size and
Dimensions. He asked for the survey copy I had and took a picture with his cell phone the very first time he came by, before we signed a contract. Plus we contacted the city for what number of houses it's buildable for. (I talked to the old and new Planner for Building and Zoning before signing the contract.)
This friend Jeff Moy was not present when my buyer Govinda Romero
Talked to me about buying it nor when the contract was signed, and never
Did Govinda Romero say he wanted to build 3 homes on a lot this size,
Until after his friend talked to him later……….

But what Romero should have done was to get with his close friend Jeff Moy before signing, and ask his opinions before signing, then follow his trusted advice.

[valerie61]

Continued
I, Valerie would never speak contrary to the Proposed Future Land Use Amendment, since it obviously says, “PROPOSED” & “FUTURE”,… which does not say “NOW not “PASSED”.

This is a complete lie just to set me up to take me to court to sue for the deposit money back. Romero good and well remembers that he said to me while driving from the law office back to his work place..
“You (Valerie... ) would not be the one to lose if I sign the contract”, he spoke and said to me the day we signed and I was the hesitant one to sign, he tried to assure me by saying, “Don't worry, I'm the only one that chances to lose anything, if I don't follow through”, he continued by reassuring me saying, “And I am going to buy it, money is not a problem, and I will close”. So I thought a few minutes, and discussed and agreed on closing costs, then signed it.
Originally Romero was always very upbeat and courteous. Orally we had happily dealt with each other. He asked me to give him first dibbs on an offer for my property. We easily agreed on the price in the beginning.
I was asking a lot for this size from the start $100k, because a friend of mine told me start high because then you can always go lower, but if you start low you can't go higher. Romero asked me to come in to his office at work to see if we could agree on a price. We ered, I said $100k, he Offered $65k, I said $85k then he said how about $75k and I happily agreed on $75k.

6. Judge Green declared to us that he would have to research and ask
Around to find out how to rule because he admitted he didn't know,
But that we could rest assured that his decision would be based
On the law and what is right and just.

But Judge Green's commitment to research and decide on a ruling for judgment in accordance with the law could not be according to the law since he ruled solely basing his judgment on Hearsay, which was his own previously declared statement.

And Final Judgment didn't seem to be done in a very timely manner, but may have been inappropriate for the length of time to execute judgment, being about 3 days shy of one month. It appears as though he must have forgotten parts our case and I saw he barely took much notes at all himself during the hearing to be able to refer to the case.

[Fr_Chuck]

Ok, I will be honest, no one here is going to read all of this. "it has to be cut and paste" or I hope it is.


Your case is very simple, and there are 100's of cases, you are trying to look at it too specific.

You have a contract to sell the property, only those things listed in the contract as a "issue" can be a reason to not buy or sell the property.
If the exact land size was listed as something to be verified as a condition of the sell, then that may be used. *** with that said, he will have to show that the property was not the size you listed on the written offer or your posted bountries were incorrect.

There has to be a noted reason. Common ones are getting a loan, a home inspection and so on. So if they listed as a condition of sale was a inspection of the land, they can break the contract by a failed inspection.

I see no reason you or the judge is having any issue with this at all.