http://hklaw.com/id24660/PublicationId2790/ReturnId31/contentid54527/ The Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1701 et. seq. (ILSA) is not a talisman that transforms a condominium purchaser’s “buyer’s remorse” into a legally cognizable defense to a breach of contract claim, or so goes the clear implication of the Eleventh Circuit’s recent unanimous opinion, Stein v. Paradigm... [more]
http://hklaw.com/id24660/PublicationId2790/ReturnId31/contentid54527/
The Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1701 et. seq. (ILSA) is not a talisman that transforms a condominium purchaser’s “buyer’s remorse” into a legally cognizable defense to a breach of contract claim, or so goes the clear implication of the Eleventh Circuit’s recent unanimous opinion, Stein v. Paradigm Mirasol, LLC (--- F.3d ----, 2009 WL 3110819 C.A.11 (Fla.)). The ruling must be welcome news to condominium developers because it is likely to dampen – at least temporarily – the recent proliferation of lawsuits from unhappy residential condominium purchasers seeking to reverse or escape deals that have proven to be bad financial investments.
In Stein, the condominium purchaser plaintiffs, the Steins, sought to set aside their contractual obligation to purchase a new condominium unit from Paradigm Mirasol shortly after the Florida housing bubble burst in early 2007. The Steins claimed that they were entitled to terminate their purchase contract and to receive a refund of their deposit because Paradigm failed to give them the extensive property disclosure report required under ILSA. Paradigm countered that it was not required to provide them the property report because, like thousands of other sales around the country, this sale fell under ILSA’s two-year exemption set forth in § 1702(a)(2). This exemption allows a seller to avoid the ILSA disclosure and registration requirements if that seller is contractually obligated to finish building the condominium unit under contract within two years of the date of the contract. Because the Steins’ purchase contract contained a provision requiring Paradigm to complete construction within this time, and because it actually did so, Paradigm contended that it was exempt from ILSA.
[less]
Response by chuckufarley
about 16 years ago
Posts: 63
Member since: Mar 2009
Depending on how the courts view this decision, it may or may not be bad news for condo owners as your own article says (try reading before posting something, genius): "...However, the courts and legislatures may nonetheless construe the decision narrowly. State law governs the extent to which force majeure clauses are enforceable, and it is possible that the state legislatures or courts will limit the effect of this holding by further restricting the circumstances in which delays are allowed. They might also expand the remedies available to purchasers after a seller’s default, regardless of any limitations set forth in the purchase contracts..."
Depending on how the courts view this decision, it may or may not be bad news for condo owners as your own article says (try reading before posting something, genius): "...However, the courts and legislatures may nonetheless construe the decision narrowly. State law governs the extent to which force majeure clauses are enforceable, and it is possible that the state legislatures or courts will limit the effect of this holding by further restricting the circumstances in which delays are allowed. They might also expand the remedies available to purchasers after a seller’s default, regardless of any limitations set forth in the purchase contracts..."