Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Case Law Student Guide 2013

Case Law Student Guide 2013

Ratings: (0)|Views: 2 |Likes:
Published by acie600

More info:

Published by: acie600 on Oct 23, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





Idaho Real Estate Commission
1 |Page
Rev. 07/01/2013
Commission Core 2013
Course Approval #: C2013
Student Guide
Learning Objectives
By the end of this module you will be able to:
Describe the effects of a “free look” provision in a real estate purchase agreement
Contrast a deed reserving “geothermal resources” to a deed reserving “mineral rights”
Summarize the elements for setting aside an Idaho sheriff’s sale
Identify the parties who can void a real estate transaction involving community property
Define a purchase money mortgage
Identify the elements which determine the priority of two recorded purchase moneymortgages
Differentiate between compensable and non-compensable property rights in acondemnation action
Define a “constructive trust” and recall when a court may apply this remedy
Explain when the equitable remedy of rescission can and cannot be obtained 
Idaho Real Estate Commission
2 |Page
Out of Jefferson County (East Idaho)
Buku Properties, LLC (Buyer) entered into two land sale contracts to buy adjacent properties, one owned by the Clarks and the other by the Petersons (both Sellers).
Buyer put down $327,000 in earnest money for the property owned by the Clarks and $25,000 for the piece owned by the Petersons.
Both contracts provided that all but $10,000 of the earnest money was “refundable untilclosing” and that Buyer had a 4 month window to be fully satisfied with the condition of the property.
Buyer became concerned about the impact of a possible Jefferson County zoning changethat would negatively impact the value of the property. Within the 4 month window,Buyer asked for an extension to resolve the zoning issue, and Sellers refused.
Buyer elected to cancel the contract and demanded refund of both earnest monies over $10,000, Sellers refused.
Buyer sued for return of earnest money and district court granted summary judgment infavor of Buyer. Sellers appealed.
Supreme Court Holding
The Supreme Court affirmed. The Court stated that the language in the Buyer’s ObligationClause permitting the Buyer to be “fully satisfied with the condition of the property” was a typeof “free look” provision permitting the Buyer to walk away from the sale. The Court construed Buyer’s request to extend the review period as an exercise of Buyer’s right to refuse to close.Therefore, Buyer was entitled to a refund of its earnest money (all but the $10,000) under each of the contracts.
Practical Application
Buyers may wish to consider putting “free look” provisions in real estate purchase agreementswhere there are large earnest money deposits or potential issues with the property. Sellers whoaccept contracts with these clauses should understand that the buyer is free to walk on the deal,and that the buyer’s unconditional right to walk is enforceable. However, large earnest moneydeposits may be an invitation to litigate, even if the contract language is clear and unambiguous,as the Court found here. You should advise the buyers and sellers to seek legal counsel beforesubmitting or accepting any offer with a “free look” provision, and also whenever a buyer attempts to exercise the “free look” and walk away.
 Buku Properties LLC v. Clark
2013 Opinion No. 39 (February 2013)Idaho Sureme Court
Idaho Real Estate Commission
3 |Page
Rev. 07/01/2013

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->