Real Estate Sale Contingent on Mortgage

I put a house up for sale recently. I got several offers. The one I accepted made it clear that the offer was not contigent upon the sale of her current house. When it got to the lawyers, the buyer changed her mind. I advised my lawyer that this was not acceptable, and the buyer backed down. Now the buyer has gotten a mortgage commitment and that commitment is contingent on the sale of the buyer’s house. I asked my lawyer what my options were if that sale (and thus my sale) did not go through. My lawyer indicated that they could argue that since the contract specifies that the sale is contingent on their obtaining a mortgage, they can simply walk (I get no part of the down payment to cover my costs). WTF? Why did I bother specifying that the sale was not contigent on her sale? Isn’t it possible to write a contract to avoid this?

I am in New Jersey, btw.
You are not my lawyer & I am not your client.

IANAL, but I sold a house recently.

If your contract with the buyer states that the sale is contingent on the buyer getting a mortgage, and if the buyer can’t get a mortgage without the sale of their house, then I believe that you are out of luck if the buyer is unable to sell their house.

One way to avoid this is to not take an offer if you know the buyer has a house to sell. It is my understanding that it is very common for lenders to make a new mortgage contingent upon payoff of their old mortgage. Many lenders won’t allow the closing on the new house until the closing on the buyer’s old house takes place. This leads to crazy days where you pack up your old house in the moving van on a Friday, go to two closings on a Saturday (to sell your old house and buy the new house), and start unloading the van at the new house. We had friends who joked that they were “homeless” for a few hours between closings.

When we sold our old house and bought our new one, thankfully our new mortgage was not contingent on selling our old house. This is actually pretty unusual, and made moving a lot easier. We had a buyer, but delayed the closing for two weeks. This gave us a two week window to move.

We were fortunate enough to get a buyer who was just moving into the area, and previously been renting. We turned down two offers from other buyers who not only did not offer enough, but made their offers contingent on selling their houses.

I am a lawyer, but not yours and I don’t practice in New Jersey. Obviously you should be listening to your lawyer’s advice on the matter.

The answer depends on the language of the contract and the real estate laws and customs in your area. I might ask your lawyer to review the actual contract to see what it specifically says on this issue. (Did you remind him that it was a non-contingent deal when you asked him what the buyer’s options were? If not, he may not have realized at that moment that it was non-contingent and given you the standard answer for a contingent contract.) If it is not contingent on a mortgage, the buyer’s failure to close should be a default, but it is likely that law and custom allow the buyer a reasonable delay of closing to complete the other transaction.

In New York residential real estate practice, under the most common forms of contract used, the mortgage contingency is satisfied when the buyer obtains a committment letter. A committment contingent on appraisal is not considered a qualifying committment letter, but one contingent on other customary terms, including sale of a prior residence and no material changes in financial position, is considered qualifying and will satisfy the mortgage contingency in the contract. In other words, according to the contract, the buyer with a qualifying committment (even one contingent on sale of prior residence or the buyer’s keeping his or her job) will have to purchase or forfeit the deposit regardless of what may happen.

However, the New York courts are exceedingly reluctant to enforce a deposit forfeiture where the buyer cannot complete the mortgage through no fault of his or her own. If, for instance, the buyer is laid off between the committment or closing, the courts will push the parties to settle without deposit forfeiture, or will be receptive to any argument as to why the forfeiture should not occur. Mostly they don’t flat out reject the contract language, but if you read the published decisions, you can see that they are working really hard to avoid further screwing the poor homebuyer that got pushed into a bad circumstance through matters beyond his or her control (and also giving the seller the potential windfall of retaining the deposit and then being to turn around again and sell the house – often for more money if the market is rising). The courts’ reluctance to enforce deposit forfeitures carries over, in varying degres, to both contingent and non-contingent contracts.

This, of course, is inapplicable to New Jersey, although courts all over are reluctant to punish essentially innocent buyers and give (what they may perceive to be) undeserved windfalls to sellers.

If I were representing a client in this situation, I would advise my client that at the end of the day that it would be difficult and expensive to fight to keep the downpayment, and to reach some sort of settlement to fairly compensate my client for his or her costs, but to return a good part of the deposit to the buyer. If the seller wants to fight, there are a bunch of legal steps necessary (at least in New York) to set yourself up for keeping the deposit, and if they aren’t done exactly right (and even if they are), it will be an uphill fight.

Good luck.

I worked in NJ real estate, and if the sale is contingent upon the buyer getting a mortgage and they don’t get it for any reason, the contract is declared null and void. I think the best you could do is sue for damages, but basically you are out of luck.

A contingency is a contingency. I remember when my Mom was buying a house. She had already sold her house in a different city and was renting so it wasn’t as big a deal for her but she was buying from someone and the sale was contingent on them getting into their new place which was contingent on those guys… She joked about how one guy way down the chain could screw up like ten sales.

Back in the recent days of it being a seller’s market you could have someone waiting in the wings as the buyer if the first one fell through. Now the tables have turned for the time being.

I understand that the contract is contingent upon securing a mortgage, and if the buyer was turned down I would shrug my shoulders and put it back on the market. However, when the bid was made, the buyer represented that they could buy the house without selling anything. Indeed, a pre approval to that effect was proffered. If this were not the case, I would have gone with a different buyer (I had another offer, the difference in money was not significant).
What the buyer then did (and I don’t blame the buyer at all, it was a smart move) was to apply for a mortgage that was contingent upon her sale, rather than use a bridge loan or some other method.
My basic complaint is that when I insisted to my lawyer that the sale not be contingent (it was clearly a deal breaker), my lawyer did not advise me that, hell, it would be contingent anyway.
BTW I have no dreams of taking the entire down payment (should the sale not go through) and I do not want to profit from this, but I did want the buyer to at least foot the bill for my lawyer and perhaps compensate me for keeping the house off the market for two months.

I hear you. Your buyer was a bit less than honest but possibly not to the point where you can recover anything from them.

I have no knowledge about NJ but in CA, the law heavily favors the buyer. The buyer can walk away with no penelty for just about any lame reason. For example, no home inspection will come out perfect. They could just say that they weren’t happy with the inspection report and cancel the whole deal. If NJ is the same way, I don’t see how you can do much of anything.