Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Offering Plan Amendment Entitles Buyer's Assignee to Rescind
Kaplan v. Madison Park Group
NYLJ 4/26/12, p. 23, col. 6
AppDiv, First Dept.
(memorandum opinion)
In an action for return of a down payment brought by assignee of a contract to purchase two condominium units, both assignee and assignor appealed from Supreme Court's denial of their respective summary judgment motions. The Appellate Division modified to grant summary judgment to assignee, holding that an amendment to the offering plan entitled assignee to rescind its contract and obtain return of its down payment.
In 2007, assignor Lipman contracted to purchase two condominium units from sponsor Madison Park. On Oct. 30, 2008, Lipman assigned his rights to assignee. The latter agreed to assume Lipman's obligations under the purchase agreement, and paid a deposit of $622,500 to an escrow agent. On June 19, 2009, sponsor notified assignee of a June 27 closing date, but assignee never appeared. The purchase agreement made failure to appear at the closing a default, but also required sponsor to provide purchaser with written notice of any default, and to give purchaser 30 days from the date of the notice to cure the default. The assignment agreement permitted assignor Lipman to retain the deposit in the event of seller's failure to close title because of assignee's uncured default. Sponsor never sent purchaser any written notice, but, on June 29, two days after the closing, purchaser advised the sponsor that it was terminating the agreement and requested return of the down payment. On March 12, 2010, the Attorney General accepted for filing an amendment to the offering plan that gave all purchasers a right to rescind and obtain return of their down payments because of a foreclosure action that had been brought against sponsor. On March 22, assignee notified assignor Lipman of its decision to rescind, and demanded that Lipman instruct the escrow agent return the down payment. When Lipman refused, assignee brought this action. Supreme Court denied summary judgment motions by both parties.
In modifying to grant assignee's summary judgment motion, the Appellate Division conceded that assignee's failure to appear at the closing constituted a material breach, but held that the cure period provided by the contract had never started to run because neither assignor nor sponsor had sent the required written notice to assignee. As a result, when the offering plan amendment was filed, the contract was still in force, and assignee was entitled to invoke the rescission right provided to all purchasers. Because assignee properly invoked that right, assignee was entitled to return of the down payment.
Offering Plan Amendment Entitles Buyer's Assignee to Rescind
Kaplan v. Madison Park Group
NYLJ 4/26/12, p. 23, col. 6
AppDiv, First Dept.
(memorandum opinion)
In an action for return of a down payment brought by assignee of a contract to purchase two condominium units, both assignee and assignor appealed from Supreme Court's denial of their respective summary judgment motions. The Appellate Division modified to grant summary judgment to assignee, holding that an amendment to the offering plan entitled assignee to rescind its contract and obtain return of its down payment.
In 2007, assignor Lipman contracted to purchase two condominium units from sponsor Madison Park. On Oct. 30, 2008, Lipman assigned his rights to assignee. The latter agreed to assume Lipman's obligations under the purchase agreement, and paid a deposit of $622,500 to an escrow agent. On June 19, 2009, sponsor notified assignee of a June 27 closing date, but assignee never appeared. The purchase agreement made failure to appear at the closing a default, but also required sponsor to provide purchaser with written notice of any default, and to give purchaser 30 days from the date of the notice to cure the default. The assignment agreement permitted assignor Lipman to retain the deposit in the event of seller's failure to close title because of assignee's uncured default. Sponsor never sent purchaser any written notice, but, on June 29, two days after the closing, purchaser advised the sponsor that it was terminating the agreement and requested return of the down payment. On March 12, 2010, the Attorney General accepted for filing an amendment to the offering plan that gave all purchasers a right to rescind and obtain return of their down payments because of a foreclosure action that had been brought against sponsor. On March 22, assignee notified assignor Lipman of its decision to rescind, and demanded that Lipman instruct the escrow agent return the down payment. When Lipman refused, assignee brought this action. Supreme Court denied summary judgment motions by both parties.
In modifying to grant assignee's summary judgment motion, the Appellate Division conceded that assignee's failure to appear at the closing constituted a material breach, but held that the cure period provided by the contract had never started to run because neither assignor nor sponsor had sent the required written notice to assignee. As a result, when the offering plan amendment was filed, the contract was still in force, and assignee was entitled to invoke the rescission right provided to all purchasers. Because assignee properly invoked that right, assignee was entitled to return of the down payment.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?