Thursday, May 31, 2007
Can I avoid state Lead Law requirements by not renting to a family with children under six?
The Massachusetts Lead Law makes it illegal to refuse to rent to families with children under six, or evicting or refusing to renew the lease of families with children under six, because of lead paint. MGL c. 111 s. 199A
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Offers without the "Magic Language"
What happens when you do not use the "magic language" from Goren? (See my Earlier Post: Magic Language for Offers)
You more than likely have an enforceable agreement.
That was set out in McCarthy v. Tobin, 429 Mass. 84, 706 N.E.2d 629 (1999) when the
Greater Boston Real Estate Board form of offer was found to be enough to make an enforceable agreement. In that decision, the SJC particularly noted the preprinted language: " NOTICE. This is a legal document that creates binding obligations. If not understood, consult an attorney."
The latest casualty of not using the "magic language" is in Kruker v. Shoestring Properties, 68 Mass. App. Ct. 644, 864 N.E.2d 24 (April 12, 2007).
You more than likely have an enforceable agreement.
That was set out in McCarthy v. Tobin, 429 Mass. 84, 706 N.E.2d 629 (1999) when the
Greater Boston Real Estate Board form of offer was found to be enough to make an enforceable agreement. In that decision, the SJC particularly noted the preprinted language: " NOTICE. This is a legal document that creates binding obligations. If not understood, consult an attorney."
The latest casualty of not using the "magic language" is in Kruker v. Shoestring Properties, 68 Mass. App. Ct. 644, 864 N.E.2d 24 (April 12, 2007).
Monday, May 21, 2007
Rights of First Refusal and the Rule Against Perpetuities
"A restriction in the deed reserved to the grantor's heirs, executors, administrators, and assigns, a preemptive right to purchase the property on the same terms and conditions contained in any bona fide offer received by, and acceptable to, the grantee, his heirs, executors, administrators, and assigns. The restrictive covenant ... was not limited to a term of years, but was of unlimited duration. "
The plaintiff sought to invalidate the right of first refusal as a violation of the (dreaded) Rule Against Perpetuities.
The SJC found that a right of first refusal to purchase real estate like that in this case is a mere de minimis restraint on the alienation of property. The restraint arises only "when a property owner receives, and is prepared to accept, a bona fide offer and, if the holder of the right chooses not to purchase the property, the owner remains free to sell to the third party. The right involves neither a fixed price, nor a long period during which the holder of the right can choose to purchase. Either of the latter limitations would burden the property by discouraging bona fide offers or, alternatively, making an owner unwilling to sell. Unlike an option to purchase at a fixed price, the owner is assured of receiving market value for his property (and thus will not be deterred from improving it or offering it for sale). Nor will potential buyers, knowing that the market value of the property will remain intact, be deterred from purchasing the property."
This pulls Massachusetts in line with the ALI position that the common-law rule against perpetuities does not apply to a right of first refusal to purchase land. See Restatement (Third) of Property (Servitudes),
The court did point out that an option to purchase real estate at a fixed price falls within the common-law rule against perpetuities. See Certified Corp. v. GTE Prods. Corp. 392 Mass. 821 (1984)
Borlotti v. Hayden Supreme Judicial Court May, 2007
The plaintiff sought to invalidate the right of first refusal as a violation of the (dreaded) Rule Against Perpetuities.
The SJC found that a right of first refusal to purchase real estate like that in this case is a mere de minimis restraint on the alienation of property. The restraint arises only "when a property owner receives, and is prepared to accept, a bona fide offer and, if the holder of the right chooses not to purchase the property, the owner remains free to sell to the third party. The right involves neither a fixed price, nor a long period during which the holder of the right can choose to purchase. Either of the latter limitations would burden the property by discouraging bona fide offers or, alternatively, making an owner unwilling to sell. Unlike an option to purchase at a fixed price, the owner is assured of receiving market value for his property (and thus will not be deterred from improving it or offering it for sale). Nor will potential buyers, knowing that the market value of the property will remain intact, be deterred from purchasing the property."
This pulls Massachusetts in line with the ALI position that the common-law rule against perpetuities does not apply to a right of first refusal to purchase land. See Restatement (Third) of Property (Servitudes),
The court did point out that an option to purchase real estate at a fixed price falls within the common-law rule against perpetuities. See Certified Corp. v. GTE Prods. Corp. 392 Mass. 821 (1984)
Borlotti v. Hayden Supreme Judicial Court May, 2007
Tuesday, May 1, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)