Earnest Money Refund (Webster: for sale, real estate, mortgage)

[Hangster]

Did you guys put a contingency on the sale of your current home?

[Aliana926]

The only contingency for the sale of the current house was for 2 months...if we don't sell our house in 2 months, the contract will be void.

I re-read the contract, the option money is non-refundable...there's no mention of EM. We are in the very 1st step...the builder hasn't even priced out our options yet...nothing has been started.

[Hangster]

Okay, so I guess it has not been two months yet, since your contract is not void and you haven't sold your home. If you want to not go through with it, then I would not sell your current house, and then when the contingency due date is here, the contract is void, and you should be able to get your EM back along with any other monies you have put in. I would hold off on any options selection if that is the case.

But in any case, you need to consult your Realtor for the best options you have for yourself.

[diggity101]

I'm confused. In the OP, you said your were afraid you might not be able to sell your house, but you have a 2 month contingency for that. Seems like you have that risk covered.

[SuperPollito]

Originally Posted by Hangster

If you want to not go through with it, then I would not sell your current house, and then when the contingency due date is here, the contract is void, and you should be able to get your EM back along with any other monies you have put in.

Not likely, but could get sued by builder for doing this as it is implied you'll make a good faith, reasonable effort to sell the current house.

[Hangster]

Originally Posted by SuperPollito

Not likely, but could get sued by builder for doing this as it is implied you'll make a good faith, reasonable effort to sell the current house.

In the legal world, "implied" means absolutely nothing. Its either clearly written or its not. Also, I'd like to see the definition of "Good Faith" and how they can prove that hasn't happen..

[SuperPollito]

Originally Posted by Hangster

In the legal world, "implied" means absolutely nothing. Its either clearly written or its not. Also, I'd like to see the definition of "Good Faith" and how they can prove that hasn't happen..

Actually, in the legal world, courts routinely apply a good faith requirement to contracts even if its not explicitly written out - you can't say you'll buy a house if your current house sells, then make absolutely zero effort to sell it. Proving it might be difficult depending on circumstances, but not necessarily impossible.

As I said, it is unlikely the OP would get sued as it doesn't make business sense, but it could happen. My broader point was that is poor form - you want the earnest money back, deal with them directly instead of trying backdoor shady tactics.

[Hangster]

Originally Posted by SuperPollito

Actually, in the legal world, courts routinely apply a good faith requirement to contracts even if its not explicitly written out - you can't say you'll buy a house if your current house sells, then make absolutely zero effort to sell it. Proving it might be difficult depending on circumstances, but not necessarily impossible.

As I said, it is unlikely the OP would get sued as it doesn't make business sense, but it could happen. My broader point was that is poor form - you want the earnest money back, deal with them directly instead of trying backdoor shady tactics.

Irregardless of what you consider "poor form" it is a viable option. The OP was asking about options to get the EM back. I was just listing an option available to the OP. Given that the OP already stated their house would most likely not be sold, then the OP is already pretty much covered. As for dealing with the builder directly, others have already proposed that option, so I didn't see the need to re-list it.

[SuperPollito]

Originally Posted by Hangster

Irregardless of what you consider "poor form" it is a viable option. The OP was asking about options to get the EM back. I was just listing an option available to the OP. Given that the OP already stated their house would most likely not be sold, then the OP is already pretty much covered. As for dealing with the builder directly, others have already proposed that option, so I didn't see the need to re-list it.

"Irregardless" is not a word. Cheers!

[Hangster]

Originally Posted by SuperPollito

"Irregardless" is not a word. Cheers!

Well, someone should inform the folks over at Merriam-Webster so they can remove it from their dictionary...

It is a non-standard word, yes, but, "irregardless" of that, it is a word..

Anyways, we are getting way off topic,

Back on Topic, OP, did you discuss with your builder about the issue yet? It seems like you are covered in either case.