The elements of a cause of action for specific performance of a contract for the sale of real property are that the plaintiff substantially performed its contractual obligations and was ready, willing, and able to perform its remaining obligations, that the defendant was able to convey the property, and that there was no adequate remedy at law. This assumes that the plaintiff is the purchaser, and the defendant is the seller.
Specific performance is, however, not awarded where money damages would be adequate to protect the expectations of the injured party. Nonetheless, the court’s discretion to grant or deny specific performance of a contract for the sale of real property is not unlimited; unless the court finds that granting a decree of specific performance would be a drastic or harsh remedy, or work injustice, the court must direct specific performance.
In Rha v. Blangiardo, 133 N.Y.S.3d 913 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020), the plaintiffs-purchasers were ready, willing, and able to close on the transaction, and the defendant-seller defaulted under the contract by failing to close timely and by failing to cooperate with the purchasers’ efforts to obtain a lender appraisal of the property. Indeed, this contract was contingent on the plaintiffs-purchasers obtaining a written mortgage commitment to fund the purchase of the property. The trial court (Queens County Supreme) found in favor of the plaintiffs on the breach of contract cause of action, thereby determining that the defendant was in breach and directing the return of the plaintiffs’ good faith down payment. Thus, the trial court effectively denied the remedy of specific performance, which would have required the defendant-seller to consummate the transaction, and further denied reasonable counsel fees to the plaintiffs-purchasers.
On appeal, the Second Department reversed the lower court’s order, and by doing so, directed that the specific performance of a real estate contract executed by the parties was the appropriate remedy. The appellate court determined that that evidence at trial demonstrated that the plaintiffs substantially performed their contractual obligations and were ready, willing, and able to perform their remaining obligations, that the seller-defendant, Blangiardo, was able to convey the property, that there was no adequate remedy at law, and that granting specific performance to the plaintiffs would not be a drastic or harsh remedy, or work injustice against Blangiardo. The appellate court also remanded the matter for further proceedings to determine the attorney’s fees to be awarded to the plaintiffs.
While not an often utilized remedy, it is a valid, enforceable remedy to put the parties in the position that they would have been had the sale been consummated. Following remand to the trial court, the plaintiffs-purchasers have since sought to have a receiver appointed to the property to protect the interests of the property while litigation continued.
Disclaimer: The information contained in this post is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. You should consult an attorney for advice regarding your individual situation. We invite you to contact us and welcome your calls and communications. Contacting us, however, does not create an attorney-client relationship.
